Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299

Copyright issue outstanding since 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sandford St Martin Trust has had a copyright notice on it since 2015. Looking at the history I think the material in question was blanked from the article at the time, but should the offending material be revdelled or whatever it is we do to this sort of thing? Sorry if this is the wrong place, haven't raised one of these for a while. DuncanHill (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, shall I take the notice off it now? DuncanHill (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes, thanks. I should have done that. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog

Got a 12 hr backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Moxy (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an administrator delete all of these pages, which qualify for CSD G7? They cannot be tagged due to their content model. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035:  Done Mz7 (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Native Design Limited logo and registered trademark.png

File:Native Design Limited logo and registered trademark.png has got a {{PD-ineligible-USonly|United Kingdom}}, but I think this is a PD-texlogo. No problem with transfer to Commons. Or not? Regards. Ganímedes (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because the logo is of a British company and British copyright law has a much lower treshold of copyright than the US. A textlogo that isn't copyrightable in the US may be copyrightable in the UK and thus ineligible for Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Leftover goaste vandalism

I recently stumbled upon the contributions of this vandal here [NSFW, extremely graphic], and I'm wondering if an admin could search for the string "Goatse in Wiki Table format" in all the revisions of Wikipedia and revdel that stuff. Or if there's a tool out there that facilitates deep revision history search on Wikipedia. It probably needs to be something WP:DUMP based. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: that sounds like something that the folks at WP:VPT could help with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. But for now the revdels have been done, so that was the priority. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Closure Review of Talk:Nicholas Hoult#Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The RfC of Talk:Nicholas Hoult#Infobox wasn't done in accordance with WP:RFC or WP:THIRDOPINION as four editors were WP:CANVASSED into commenting by the requestor here.

In addition, invalid arguments were made in favour of the requestor that because requestor had done most of the work on this particular article the editors sided with his preference for the article to use the image rather than the infobox. I believe this is also contrary to WP:OWN and a discussion isn't a WP:VOTE.

Based on the above, I believe the closure should be overturned. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, you should wait a month, then (if you wish) open another Rfc. Not that I'd be looking forward to it. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tanbircdq: So what? The RfC you're talking about was closed on 30 April. Another infobox RfC, which looks likely to end in consensus for an infobox in the article, is now in full swing, as you well know, since you yourself started it on May 1. An infobox in the article is what you want. So why are you here, and why now? Please recollect that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. IMO you were pretty lucky not to be sanctioned for immediately starting a new RfC, and even more for putting the infobox back in the middle of it. User:Fish and Karate, who closed the RfC you're talking about, and myself, decided instead it would be less disruptive, and lead to less alarms and excursions, to let the new RfC run. Discussion here. In seven days it can be closed and consensus assessed. I expect everybody to then live with the new consensus and stop it with the incessant RfCs, or I will put the page under a similar sanction as the one I implemented at Stanley Kubrick.[1] Well, similar except that the Kubrick sanction was that people are not allowed to add an infobox to the article for the next four months, while a sanction for Nicholas Hoult would be more likely to read "you are not allowed to remove the infobox from the article for the next four months" — all in the interest of respecting consensus as well as stopping the infobox wars on these articles. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC).

Re-pinging: it's Fish and karate. Grrr. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC).

I "immediately" started another RfC because the correct the procedure and rules of consensus weren't followed as the requestor clearly canvassed other editors to game the system which skewed the discussion in their favour as you can see from this diff. The fact that all editors sided with Numerounovedant without any reference to any guidelines whereas the RfC is clearly going significantly differently says a lot.

I'm acting on the advice of another editor here (it's a shame an admin couldn't have given me this information in the first place).

Not my fault that main opposing editor changed his mind from conceding that the article can have an infobox which is why I readded the infobox here. All done in good faith. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that the editors have no brains of their own? Or are they all quasi-socks? Well, all of them have been around for way than myself and have rarely (in my knowledge) discussed info-boxes. I invited then because they were all more than familiar with BLPs and nothing more. I am sorry but you have to stop with the canvassing allegations, it is turning into a yawnfest. Discredit it first. There are people at the new RfC who have fairly vague opposes, but you don't see people running around accusing them if siding with you as a part of larger conspiracy against anyone right? I'll give you that everything has been done in good faith except for your constant canvassing rants. VedantTalk 21:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tanbircdq: I still don't see the point of coming here now, when only a week remains of the new RfC's runtime. You weren't exactly advised to do that, you know. The other user was talking about what to do in a similar situation "in the future". In this situation, the closure review train has already left the station, and will soon be arriving in the heavenly City of Consensus. Just wait a little, please. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Donald Trump

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A number of right-wing POV pushing users are engaged in tendentious editing to maintain a whitewashed status quo version of the article that avoids coverage of numerous scandals, specifically the Mueller investigation, instead following a line that more or less reads: "it's a witch hunt, no collusion!". Yes this article is a BLP, yes this topic is covered elsewhere in greater depth, but the Russia scandal and the issues surrounding numerous members of Trump's campaign, are some of the most significant things about Donald Trump, covered massively in RS, and will only become more significant over time. I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents -- Trump World PR reps. Others may simply be partisans. Sure there are issues with trolls and socks, but some are wikilawyering. Some, I assume, are good faith editors. At this point I have spent some time engaging in the discussion, and I am ready to disengage and file some RFCs and probably an ArbCom case. As a first step, here I am. Also, in before someone says that I'm the one engaging in POV pushing: the vast majority of RS have covered Trump in great depth including his scandals. I may have given up my impartiality to engage on the page over the last few days, but I submit I was doing so in the interest of ultimately making progress in the dispute. I won't hide my own POV about Mr. Trump and I don't intend to act as an admin on that page, just an interested editor. Andrevan@ 03:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

See [2] Andrevan@ 03:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Non-content comment: I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents. POV pusher? nah mate, you're a conspiracy theorist. Just ... and you said it all serious. Alright, line up here if you're a Russian spy. Vlad will take down your names. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm just upset Putin hasn't paid me this month and my rent is due soon!--MONGO 03:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I know! My paycheck is late as well. Kim Jong-un and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi always pay on time. Don't be a deadbeat Vlad! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

And here I thought today was May 24th, not April 1st. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC):

Kind of wish I was a Russian spy, I hear the pay is not to bad. But in all seriousness, I have been mentioned in this as well. You can take a look at my talk page for some discussion on this. It sounds like a take a break and reassess yourself type situation. PackMecEng (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

One has to love it when he opens a question out of the blue on your talkpage with a harassing comment:[3] "Pleasure to make your acquaintance. I am guessing you are a right wing American politics editor and supporter of blocked user who I warned about the username policy just now." This was right after he harassed a blocked editor about their long established username which gets zero traction from other commentators [4] and above he calls out others as POV pushers when he just got through posting he plans on violating WP:SYNTH by stating: [5] "What I'd like to ultimately add to the lede is the idea that Donald Trump is the most scandal-ridden president in recent history." There are a few more issues of POV pushing to be sure like his refusal to budge on his DS violation of a challenged edit.--MONGO 03:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a simple fact that there have been more Trump scandals in the last year than there were for 8 years under Obama. Yet our article is whitewashed and held hostage by tendentious partisans such as yourself and PackMecEng and others. I edited the article for a couple days and I'm more or less done finding out what I wanted to find out, so feel free to make this about me if you like, but that's not a very productive use of time. Andrevan@ 04:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If I was a tendentious partisan I'd be over at the Hillary Clinton article outlining her transgressions, but I supported that article for FA when it was at FAC and the last thing I did was try and muff up the works. You on the other hand have deliberately tried to provoke those you call partisans because they don't agree with your edits. You've gone to the talkpages and harassed them. And right here you're stating: "I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents -- Trump World PR reps." Wow.--MONGO 04:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Wow" is right. For me, personally, I'm most shocked by all this in combination with Andrevan being an administrator. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You already admitted in the linked diff that you are a partisan. Andrevan@ 04:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

He made no such admission. You made an interpretation. Lepricavark (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why Hillary Clinton contains so much more information about Travelgate and Whitewater than Bill Clinton does. And there's 7 paragraphs about "her emails". There's neither need nor motivation to outline transgressions more at Hillary Clinton, even for a "partisan" editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not look at that page for some time and its possible much of that was added after the FAC. I do not recollect the article had that much coverage on the issues you mention. If Andrevan feels so strongly about the Trump article lacks adequate details then he can fix that by making sound arguments that do not attack other editors nonstop. I strongly urge him to review BLP and AGF at this point because he is starting to look unhinged.--MONGO 04:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Secret paid editing rings are a reality, see: Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia, [6]. We also know Russians were paying social media users on Reddit, Facebook, and other places[7][8] Andrevan@ 03:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it is a thing, but to make those types of serious accusations requires serious proof. PackMecEng (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see this proof. Whatever it is. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I told you at User talk:PackMecEng that POV-pushing must be demonstrated, not just alleged. Apparently you didn't believe me, because here we've seen a lot of alleging and no demonstrating. The only thing you've demonstrated so far is how to violate WP:AGF. AGF violation is rampant among the general editing population but unacceptable from an admin, who is expected to set an example of proper behavior. My considered and humble advice is to withdraw this before your adminship becomes a real issue, and, optionally, start building AE cases against the editors of your choice. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The recent diffs with respect to User:MONGO are [9] [10] -- it's going to take me a long time to put together cases for user behavior going back some months. I was hoping by starting the discussion here, people might help me out. Andrevan@ 04:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, while I believe that some of these editors are partisan and their edits show it, I very much doubt you'll find evidence of collusion between them. For instance, I feel secure enough about MONGO and Winkelvi that I will vouch for them. And even if they were colluding, it would be happening off-wiki and you'd have a hell of a time proving it. In other words--OMG I can't believe I'm using this term--it may well be that you're on a you-know-what hunt... This is not to say that all of them, or some or all of them together, are productive in this regard, but I do not believe they're collaborating in some nefarious way. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you have a good reason to know that MONGO and Winkelvi are good faith editors, you could send me some information about via email so that I focus my attention at the proper editors. Andrevan@ 04:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this really happening? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You're certain something nefarious is going on there but you need help identifying the perpetrators? This is approaching the comical. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is already pretty obvious from this thread alone who I need to look at. Perhaps my pending investigation will act as a deterrent in the meantime. Andrevan@ 04:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"Perhaps my pending investigation will act as a deterrent in the meantime." Well, that was pretty chilling. Talk about an editing and commenting killer. Yikes. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan: Are you familiar with xtools? particularly, are you familiar with the one that gives you any editor's entire editing history to peruse? Let's take MONGO's xtools stats: 13 years, 70k edits, and a bunch of featured articles (e.g. Retreat of glaciers since 1850 or Shoshone National Forest). Winklevi's go back six years, 27k edits, no FA/GA's but significant contributions to article like Billy the Kid and Robin Williams. I wonder why the KGB would have considered these to be necessary contributions. In any case, thanks Putin, we have some great articles on parks and forests thanks to your agent MONGO. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the Retreat of glaciers article along with my comrades before Putin put me on his payroll, but Putin pays us to maintain it because we want global warming!!!--MONGO 05:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, you forgot to mention that I just wrote the Dell Bull article and significantly improved the Lyle F. Bull article. They are about two U.S. Navy Admirals, father and son, with the son have recently been the Chief of Naval Air Training. Perhaps someone now needs to get in touch with the Pentagon to have him investigated. Since I'm Russian Wikipedia Spy and Infiltrator, and all. Could be I'm trying to promote the Admiral's Navy career because he's actually a mole? (this is all tongue-in-cheek, of course...no BLP violations here!). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Come on, rnddude. The Russians aren't stupid, they know how to create a convincing cover. They sure fooled you! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, apparently Andrevan has caught onto that possibility too. Sleeper agents, but of course... how could I have been so blind? Mr rnddude (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• With this thread and his behavior at FCAYS's talk, Andrevan's not having a great day. How many more of us need to point that out before he starts listening? Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Call for WP:BOOMERANG for Andrevan

Looking over Talk:Donald Trump, I am seeing what appears to me to be Andrevan doing what he accuses others of doing: POV pushing and engaging in tendentious editing. (Note that this does not imply that those he oppose are or are not doing the same sort of thing). I think ANI should take a close look at Andrevan's posting history and perhaps issue some warnings. Again, this does not exclude dealing with other troublesome users.

I am willing to take the time to prepare a detailed case with diffs, but for now I just want to start the conversation.

Because Andrevan has a habit of accusing those who have a problem with his behavior of being partisan, let me make my position clear: I have an equally strong dislike for Trump and Clinton, for Democrats and Republicans. This is based upon my opinion that the ability of politicians to deceive us far exceeds our ability to detect deception, and I reject all claims that "MY politician is different!" as being signs of successful deception. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure if we are in Boomerang territory yet, but this post certainly appeared to be disingenuous. It's not okay to go to another editor's talk page, accuse them of being partisan, and then further accuse them of escalating the discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Amen on a lack of a decent candidates to vote for in 2016. I voted for my write in Bigfoot.--MONGO 05:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Hopefully someone will WP:TROUT Andrevan and close this thread, which is (at best) a waste of time, and may get one or more editors sanctioned if it keeps going for another day. to be clear; the top thread is the waste of time, not Macon's boomerang suggestion) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm interested to know what editors would get sanctioned and for what, power~enwiki. Care to enlighten? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Primarily Andrevan. If anyone wants to discuss this with me further, please do so on a user talk page and not here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang me if you must, but Wikipedia is under attack by Russian/GOP agents and partisans. FCAYS is probably one of them, and I would not assume that just because there is a lengthy history going back years that the user cannot also be a paid editor. We know that the Russians spent time building profiles and activating them later.[11][12][13] This campaign started in 2008 or 2009. Andrevan@ 05:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The above seals the deal for me. Andrevan should be topic banned from all articles involving post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. We don't need a disruptive editor accusing veteran editors of being paid by the Russians without providing any evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • At first I thought your suggestion too harsh, however, it occurs to me that there's no way out of this and if he's going to continue to edit such articles, how can he have that kind of view regarding other editors and edit collegially? His attitude has to be the worst case of WP:BATTLE I've ever seen in a veteran editor, let alone an administrator. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• e/c Andrevan, is there some concrete discussion or a specific edit you can point to? I looked at the talk page and see the usual back-and-forth of contentious political articles. I'm not saying "diffs or gtfo", but more like "it would help to know if you're saying that editor so-and-so is trying to cover up Russian influence by removing references to Mike Pence's balalaika playing, or whatever". Yeah there's partisan editing going on, but we don't need paid editors or Russians for that. Our partisans are selfless enough to do it for free. MONGO and Winklevi have been around forever (probably before 2008) and Drmies' advice about them is sound. Maybe the article can get better once there are more secondary sources. The stuff currently in the newspapers generally is too recent and frantic to be much of a reference for assessing due weight. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's been going on since at least Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack, see indeffed User:Erlbaeko, in which Russian users pushed the idea that the chemical attack was a false flag, there is also User:Trust Is All You Need who was on a crusade to convert all socialism articles to the Soviet line. Andrevan@ 05:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"We know that the Russians spent time building profiles and activating them later." I think I saw this plot in a 1980s Kevin Costner movie. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• And the chance of anyone here who is not a counterintelligence professional ferreting out long term clean skin accounts of state actors is pretty slim and, based on your edits here, your chance is exactly zero. Please drop this. If you feel Wikipedia is a playground for professional POV pushers then go work constructively on the article to balance the POV. Use the SOCK and COI procedures we have to get the low hanging fruit and dispute resolution to manage POV.

Hell, for all we know this whole thread you started could be a Russian effort to discredit the non-pro-Trump position with your initial salvo at FCAS about his username ploy to establish yourself. Yeah... that's bullshit but it is just as likely as the claims you are throwing about. Entering the hall of mirrors is seldom fulfilling and can lead to even pros barking at reflections. Jbh ^Talk 05:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(Wow, much e/c) Andrevan: yeah there was also the Russia vs Poland wikidrama (government payments probably not involved, but the EEML was real). I don't see any allegation of Russian government involvement in that Ghouta mediation page. The usual partisan nationalists, sure, that's like death and taxes, but we're used to it. Let me ask a different question: what do you want the readers of this thread to do? We can't sanction anyone for COI or collusion without solid evidence. The Trump article is already under the usual BLP, DS, page protection, and constant intense scrutiny from all sides. Everyone in the world has an opinion about Trump that the Wikipedia article won't affect. Even if there is some weird manipulation happening (and ok, even if it's impossible to pinpoint specific instances, maybe you can detect its presence by smell), do you have reason to think it's worse for the Trump article than the general run of politics articles, or for that matter celebrity articles tended by their publicists? This is Wikipedia and a super high profile article like Trump is going to be crap no matter what. I wouldn't freak out about it. If you haven't been around long, you'll get used to it. The Galloway/Philip Cross thing is probably more significant because it's much easier to exert influence when the readers aren't already polarized. Nobody cares what the "other side" (whichever one that is) says about Trump. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking for any action, I'm trying to have a discussion and solicit opinions. Maybe some people have been seeing what I've seen, with that Philip Cross dispute and others, that there's been a sharp rise in recent activation of Russian social media accounts, and attempts to control information. Andrevan@ 05:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see Jytdog's recent comment at [[14]] which supports the idea of FCAYS being a Russian agent, as well as the timing and connection to Sarah Palin as discussed in the sources I linked above.[15] Andrevan@ 05:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Jytdog is a very outspoken editor, and if they thought that Factchecker was a Russian agent (or was being paid by anyone for their editing) I am certain they would not shy away from saying so, if they had the evidence to back up hat contention. Jytdog said nothing of the sort, so it is not appropriate for you to assume that your conclusion from Jytdog's data is also their conclusion, especially as they did not specifically say so.

As for the general question of Russian agents infiltrating Wikipedia, it is, of course, not impossible for the Russian government to attempt to influence American culture by skewing articles in the Internet's primary English-language source of instant information, but the editors you have chosen to select as possible agents are, frankly, absurd choices, people who have been here for a long time and shown their allegiance to the Wikipedia model of editing.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are editors in the American politics subject area who are pushing their points of view, but that in itself proves nothing, and since you have provided no hard evidence to support your particular theory, I'm inclined to believe that those editors do so because those are their personal points of view, and that they are not editing on assignment from elsewhere. Frankly, I don't know how you would go about proving someone is a Russian agent, but I do know that you can't just cast aspersions left and right without backing it up with sufficient evidence. I think you need to stop, now, because if you don't a topic ban or a block is almost certainly headed your way, and it will be supported by editors of all sorts of different political views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violetriga

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Violetriga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Young blood transfusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person created a horrible article about a medical procedure under development that is being hyped as snake oil, with no MEDRS sources, bad sources, and some things that were not true or gossip. They nominated it for DYK and it was approved and was queued, but happily this was noted at WT:MED, and I posted at TW DYK here and it was yanked by User:Black Kite, for which I remain grateful. We are discussing how to improve the review process so this doesn't happen again.

I and others worked over the page and got it to a decent stage, like here. (My cursing edit note in that diff is because of "help" from Littleoilive oil, who has taken to following me around these days. That is another story.)

Violetriga has been peppering the talk page with personal attacks and comments like this (after I said i wasn't responding to a rhetorical question) I'm guessing you're not able to understand the question then. Want to try and answer them rather than taking the simple way out? and in response to my effort to discuss and eliminate the gossip in the page on the Talk page, they wrote this: Or you are operating outside of your zone of knowledge

Here they support keeping a FRINGE, shilling claim about health effects in the article, writing So "Karmazin claims ..." doesn't make it clear enough, give me strength. None of this was reported as factual, all was clearly "claimed". The disputed content was Karmazin claims in an interview with New Scientist that "Whatever is in young blood is causing changes that appear to make the ageing process reverse". He pointed to how carcinoembryonic antigens fell by around 20 per cent and stated that most participants showed improvements within a month.[4][5]

When someone pointed out that we don't amplify FRINGE claims that way, the response was Daft. So we can't report claims even when they are clearly and unambiguously written as claims? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We can't even use New Scientist and The Economist as sources. Hmm. They have no understanding that this would open the door to all kinds of lunatic charlatan claims in WP.

They wrote here Yep. Everything was accurate. And properly sourced. I look forward to the new version of this article completed by those who have ripped everything else out of it. and wrote this: We're supposed to be building an encyclopaedia not wholesale deleting content. How pathetic..

They have no conception of what MEDRS calls for, nor the broad and deep consensus in the community over this and have ignored any effort to explain. (eg the diffs above, this earlier one, this later one, here,

About their constant claims that "everything is sourced and accurate", the article included from the beginning that Peter Thiel was a "prominent investor". This was not supported by the source provided, as I pointed out here -- Please read their responses in that short section. After I removed that incorrect claim, they restored it. I and others kept trying to remove this and other gossip, and Violetriga restored it e.g here.

The kicker here was that after I brought the Theil stuff to BLPN, they finally acknowledged that this is gossip about Theil and should not be in the article, and write here to someone else: Agreed, which is why I removed it and similar on Peter Thiel. Argh.

Again, this is the person who wrote, vehemently and dismissively to every one else just yesterday: I still maintain that secondary sources are used, that nothing unprovable is claimed, and that the article does not contravene policy. My examples are given. (diff)

The lack of basic competence - of the ability to read a source and summarize it, is clear in the initial example of Thiel being described as a prominent investor when the source doesn't say that, and just today when they removed content with edit note more incorrectly sourced claims then removed it again after it was restored, here, with an an edit note Removed because it is not what the source says!! when the source says:

Interest in parabiosis, however, is now coming back. A recent article on Inc.com is sure to spawn interest and another cycle of snake oil promises....

What is the current state of the science in terms of parabiosis and anti-aging effects? Any specific health claims for humans is definitely unproven at this time, but the research is intriguing (i.e., perfect for snake oil)....

Given history, however, it is likely that young transfusions, or even some form of parabiosis, will now also take on a life of its own as the latest snake oil product. Already there is a company called Ambrosia who is running a “study,” and as Inc.com reports....

Hopefully I will be able to tell you in 10-20 years if transfusions of plasma from young donors is of any clinical benefit. Until then the treatment will likely have a second life on the fringe as snake oil. Given that this is likely to be a very expensive treatment, it will probably be elite snake oil for the wealthy.

What was that edit note again? Oh, Removed because it is not what the source says!!.

People they reverted have included me, User:Natureium, User:Seraphimblade, User:Winged Blades of Godric, and User:Doc James. People whose input they have ignored have included all those as well as User:RexxS. Yet they keep harping on the talk page about "collaboration".

This person is a former admin (log), which is ... mind-boggling.

This was the first time I have encountered this person on a health topic, and I would like it to be the last. Violetriga has wasted the time of several people over the past three days, insulted us, edit warred, and misrepresented what they have done. Please ban them from editing about health and medicine, including research.Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Even as I waa writing this, they went back to DYK and suggested a new hook: [Did you know ...]that ‘’’young blood transfusions’’’ can be bought?. Unbelievable. I don't think there will be consensus to use the front page of WP to advertise for a company selling snake oil through an unethical clinical trial and I cannot believe this was even proposed. Look at the first hook they proposed: that the blood of young people may extend your life? Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It was that insane DYK hook that led me to bringing the article to WT:MED in the first place. I can't think of any reason this article should be featured on the front page. Natureium (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to WT:MED, if I didn't say it before, and for all your work on this. You found the best sources we have used thus far. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the general WP:DYK concerns are unlikely to be resolved in any way other than a full ARBCOM case. As far as the other concerns: for persons of a certain generation, "former admin" is not entirely a badge of honor; I'd like to hear what defense they have before supporting a TBAN but the evidence Jytdog presents (and comments on Talk:Young blood transfusion) looks pretty damning. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest "former admin" is a badge of honor, but more the opposite. I take it to mean that you have no excuse for not knowing/following wikipedia policies. (Also applies to current admins, as seen above) Natureium (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The BN thread shows this to be a routine desysop for lack of use of the tools, Violetriga can get the tools back any time just by asking. There is absolutely no shame in this. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Definitely bizarre. This user also edits articles about Nazi gold train, Cockroach farming, Bisexual lighting and other unusual turns of phrase. I remember seeing their name around some years ago but not why or in what context. Andrevan@ 03:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Talk:Young blood transfusion looks to me like a standard (cough) content discussion for that type of subject. There's a legitimate debate in Wikipedia about perceived MEDRS expansionism and violet/riga looks to be on the side favoring a narrower approach, no big deal. I don't see admin involvement being needed here now that the DYK is handled. DYK itself should die, but that's a separate matter. I did see a bunch of creepy news stories about young blood transfusion a while back, so I'm glad to have seen updated info in that article just now. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is what Jytdog is doing rather than collaborating? I’ve responded many times in many places and I’m not about to spend hours going through diffs. Jytdog has obviously put a slant on this report, leaving out their behaviour which is uncivil and unhelpful. I’ve been trying to improve the article but they don’t engage properly in discussion. violet/riga _^[talk] 08:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Last month at WP:ANI, violet/riga did say I clearly have WP:OWN issues on articles that I have just created.[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.25.65 (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Close

I think this discussion is likely to shed more heat than light. There's active discussion of the content at talk:Young blood transfusion and the DYK discussion is unlikely to promote the article with a hook flattering of obvious quackery. Violetriga and Jytdog are both inclined to be obsessive, absolutely not like me in any way at all, I might add (cough), and just need to chill. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phabricator login broken?

Moved to WP:VPT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Next cryptocurrency topicban

Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• edit count
• related: Shiftchange TBAN

Shiftchange's comrade, Ladislav Mecir, is the next cryptoadvocate for your consideration.

Per their editcount they have ~8.700 edits; ~8,300 of them in the last four years, almost entirely focused on crytocurrencies. Here are their top edits:

• 2,565 Bitcoin
• 564 Blockchain
• 429 Legality of bitcoin by country or territory
• 286 Cryptocurrency
• 279 Bitcoin Cash
• 207 Rebol
• 184 Bitcoin scalability problem
• 168 History of bitcoin
• 103 Satoshi Nakamoto

On the talk page

What brings us here today is this comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash: Bcash is not a derogatory term. As said by the sources, it is a failed rebranding attempt. Having failed to rebrand Bitcoin Cash to Bcash in case of the Bitstamp and Bitfinex exchanges or to convince wallet providers or significantly many journalists to push their agenda, the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose. While it is not in their power to use the Wikipedia to rebrand Bitcoin Cash, they are at least trying to pretend that the failed Bcash rebranding has got the same notability as the original and widely used Bitcoin Cash name. which they have restored twice, despite my warning to them at their talk page, first here with the doubling-down-on-the-crazy edit note rv., this is confirmed by the cited sources and again here.

There is of course no source on the Talk page or in the article, that says that "proponents ...are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose".

(The alt name, "BCash", for the crytpocurrency, is something that its advocates find actually insulting. Vehemently so. Shiftchange for example, had !voted at the Rfc on mentioning BCash" in the lead as follows: Oppose Its a derogatory slur used against Bitcoin Cash for the purpose of propaganda. Its not a description or common name. No software developers or exchanges refer to it that way.)

The comment above was an addendum to Ladislav Mecir's earlier !vote, here (sorry, that is four diffs separated by some diffs from others) which is too long to copy here, but makes the same argument as Shiftchange, albeit "supported" by citations. I use the scare quotes because their summary of what those sources say is often not supported by the source cited.

Their comment in another RfC on the talk page about about removing a blatant POV testimonial section sticks out like a source thumb among the "deletes".

at the article

• This recent diff series is typical. Looking through that, they added"
  • tabloidy ref (Independent) with a passing, postive mention, to the first sentence, added this ref, linked to a section with "good news" about Bitcoin Cash, added some more unsourced content to a section that was unsourced, etc. and then reverted to keep it when it was removed.

• before then, added this source to the first sentence, with "bad news" about Bitcoin.

• before that, added a big bolus of badly sourced content about "wallets" (the software where you keep your cryptocurency).

and there is plenty more. This person is an advocate who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Shiftchange's comrade, Ladislav Mecir"—note this edit proving the claim is unfounded. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"comrade" in the sense of editing promotionally and aggressively in favor of Bitcoin Cash. This is not even a little ambiguous. Being aware that Shiftchange was worse than you is no sign that you see how badly you are editing and behaving. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog wrote: "The alt name, BCash, for the crytpocurrency, is something that its advocates find actually insulting."—Note that in my comment cited above I actually wrote that "Bcash is not a derogatory term."

Here Jytdog wrote: "The comment you made here ... amounted to personal attacks on other editors."—There are several reasons why this is unfounded:

• Here is an edit made by Jytdog claiming that there have been attempts to recruit users with specific viewpoints to edit the article.
• There have been attempts by proponents of said specific viewpoints such as this, this and many others, actually leading to page protection.
• In my response to Jytdog's claim at my talk page, I also wrote:
  • Let's consider a Wikipedian XY that is not a proponent of rebranding of the Bitcoin Cash to Bcash. Then, maybe surprisingly for you, the comment I made, speaking about "proponents of the rebranding" does not concern XY at all. Thus, logically, it could not amount to "personal attack" on her.
  • Now let's consider a Wikipedian XZ that is a proponent of rebranding of the Bitcoin Cash to Bcash. Then, maybe surprisingly for you, the comment I made is not a personal attack on her either, since it just claims that XZ wants to claim that the Bcash name is at least as notable as the Bitcoin Cash name, which is exactly what the "proponent of rebranding" implies.

Jytdog should be more careful when accusing anybody of wrongdoing and deleting their comment based on unfounded accusations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help here. I will leave it to others to evaluate your rhetoric and respond.Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog wrote: "Their comment in another RfC on the talk page about about removing a blatant POV testimonial section sticks out like a source thumb among the "deletes"." - note that I just made a comment not claiming that the section should be kept, but claiming that the contents of the section does not correspond to its title. If that is a reason why I am a "Shiftchange's comrade" remains to be judged by somebody else than Jytdog, as it looks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog wrote: "almost entirely focused on crytocurrencies"—note that, e.g. the statistics of the Cox's theorem page mentions my authorship to be 3'677 bytes and my authorship of the Bayesian probability article to be 2'865 bytes. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'll just note that I've noticed Ladislav Mecir trying to own a page or dominating discussion on a talk page, see e.g. Talk:Cryptocurrency#Controversial in cryptocurrency articles. I suspect that many of the articles noted at the top of this thread would fit into that class of articles being owned or dominated by LM. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for any WP:SPA focused on cryptocurrency. It's exactly like creationism, climate change denial or homeopathy. These are quasi-religious cultists and the wider Wikipedia community lacks the time and the patience to continue to argue with them. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lots of areas have WP:SPA editors, that's no reason to enact a TBAN here. If you really feel that is necessary, let's invoke General Sanctions in the area first. I do agree with the comment at [17] that the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash feud has spilled onto Wikipedia, based on my own editing experience and the diffs in this thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it is, because the SPAs have an absolutely homogeneous agenda, promoting crypto. SPA religious editors may be from different sects, but SPA crypto editors are almost all members of the crypto cult. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not quite homogeneous; the specific dispute here is that certain Bitcoin Cash supporters feel that is the one true Bitcoin, and opponents feel that it's some form of scam. A lot of the other crypto-currencies have no wide-spread interest, importance, or significance, and are edited merely by people who stand to profit from promoting them. Those articles are overwhelmed with promotional material from "the trade-press" (as a charitable description of what others would simply call "unreliable sources" and "blogs", i.e [18]). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:power~enwiki this is not a content dispute, and no, it is a not a binary thing. Generally for each one of these currencies there are fierce advocates for it, and most everybody else (inside the crypto-communities and outside) looks at the currency/project with some interest, or perhaps some skepticism, or maybe doesn't look at all and is just bored by the whole thing. There are a few of these currencies that have been outright scams. I haven't read anything that said that Bitcoin Cash is illegit or a scam per se.

The issue here is the behavior of this advocate, as it has been for each other advocate I have brought here. The issue is the advocacy.

You know as well as I do that that Wikipedia is always vulnerable to activists, due to our open nature. This vulnerability sharpens, if there are online communities of activists. This vulnerability sharpens to the point of bloody hell, when there are online activists with financial interests in their object of advocacy. There is almost nobody involved in the online communities around these cryptocurrencies, who doesn't hold the currency and believe that they are going to change the world through the technology. This is like (not exactly like, but like) some kind of prosperity religion thing, and it is all happening online.

Wikipedia is not an extension of the blogosphere -- not a place for people to come here and preach their currency-religion and state their paranoias like they are facts. LM's statement of "fact" (on which they have by now not just doubled down, but quintupled down) that the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose is not a statement of fact but rather an expression of the paranoia of the Bitcoin Cash community. He has no self-insight into how unacceptable that statement is, here in WP.

This is a symptom of the underlying approach to WP. Fortmit.

I'll add that our content about each one of these currencies is going to be paltry and slim in the eyes of these people. WP is a lagging indicator of notability by design; we are not going to have the level of detail they want for a long long time, if ever; we are not going to track the roller coaster of valuations as the coin markets gyrate. Not what we do here. Not what WP is for. These crytocurrency people do not understand this. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I still think you're reading too much into the specific diff of the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose. I take it to simply mean that there is POV-pushing in this area (which everyone agrees is happening), and not an accusation of canvassing. There's definitely some biased editing here by Ladislav, if General Sanctions were in place and he had been warned about them, I would support sanctions. I don't currently feel they are necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a direct claim about what other people are actually doing here in WP. Reading it as anything else is reading against its very plain meaning. I get it that Bitcoin Cash advocates in their reddit forums are all paranoid. Edit warring to retain that level of paranoid attack on other editors here in WP - to revert with an edit note that this is confirmed by the cited sources is just... bizarre. There are no cited sources that say that people are coming to Wikipedia to try to rebrand the currency. None. This is paranoid crap that Ladovic obviously cannot restrain himself from. So we need to restrain him. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Mecir's comment about being sourced was in regard to the "Bcash is not a derogatory term. As said by the sources, it is a failed rebranding attempt." rather than any other claim. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That is obvious. And that is not why the comment was removed. Which is also obvious. The edit note was a twisting nonresponse to what was (and still is) problematic. Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN and support general sanctions for cryptocurrency per Guy and Power. We are currently getting flooded with crap about crypto, and I think this editor is being disruptive, but I don't think Jytdog and Guy should have to get a topic ban discussion going every time we need one. Let's streamline dealing with the stuff, please. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• No comment on the topic ban, but I agree that cryptocurrencies should be under discretionary sanctions. I'll make a formal proposal below. MER-C 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose For a topic ban I'd want to see ongoing disruption that haven't been managed via other means. I can;t see any other means having been tried, but then I can't see evidence of long term disruption - after years of editing on these topics, no ANI threads about the editor (noting that there was one in 2014 which briefly included discussion about his editing, but that was a) 4 years ago, and b) not the focus of the discussion), a clean block log, no history of 3RR violations, and going through his talk page for the last two years I can find no formal warnings, with the occasional concerns seemingly met with discussion and at times compromise or agreement. There may be more elsewhere, but it isn't obvious, and hasn't been presented here. What has been presented here is enough to say that a warning is appropriate, but jumping to a topic ban for a few recent edits of varying quality is a big step. With all that said, if we end up with general sanctions, then all editors would be aware of the limits for their behaviour, so stepping out of line could reasonably warrant tbans for anyone, and that would be fair enough. - Bilby (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support given his recent edits to cryptocurrency (e.g. [19] reverting the word "controversial" in the lede) @Ladislav Mecir: is up to his old article ownership again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For article ownership, note this, this and this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi there, just a heads up that there seems to be a 20+ page backlog at WP:RPP. Thanks. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  12:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RPP is now very backlog again!

There are 27+ remaining request. Can some admins deal with it? Hhkohh (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving articles to draft space without discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I saw something that concerned me. It may very well be fine under policy, I'm just not sure. Here's a diff of moves by Bradv (log). He's just the person I noticed, there may be others that do this. I'm not after sanctions, just wanting to know if this is kosher or not.

The question is about moving articles to draft space without any discussion or any admin bits. Because this removes it from searches, this is effectively deleting the article, and effectively the same as userfying an article. It would seem that this is something that should either require a discussion at an XfD board, or at least the admin bit and accountability under WP:ADMINACCT. Is this the accepted way to deal with what he is calling "undersourced articles"? Since I'm not sure, I wanted a broader discussion re: the appropriateness of this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• See WP:DRAFTIFY Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mop-holding or not, I think it's generally accepted that if someone makes an "administrative edit," they are still subject to ADMINACCT (NAC is probably the best example). But this whole question of draftyfying (how the heck do we spell that?!) has come up somewhere else recently; I'm sure there's a discussion on another board but I can't for the life of me recall where. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hence my mention of ADMINACCT. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTIFY does say that "To unilaterally move an article to draft space, you should: [...] be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability." Natureium (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a fairly widespread practice, not limited to just one or a handful of users, and is aided by some userscripts that make it somewhat automated. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Draftifying articles is standard practice at NPP. See WP:NPPDRAFT. Natureium (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Dennis Brown that users draftifying articles with no oversight seems a bit concerning because it does seem comparable to deletion. Could something similar to WP:PROD with its corresponding Category:Proposed deletion be created so there would be a Category:Proposed draft for oversight? Serial Number 54129, you might be thinking of this recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion [20] regarding using RM discussion in place of AfD, with some raising the concern that this hid the discussion from AfD regulars. WP:DRAFTIFY seems like a useful thing but could maybe use some clarifying and oversight. DynaGirl (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• This has been discussed by the community in several different ways, and it is allowable. The most recent discussion directly affecting this was in September 2017 and closed with clear consensus in favour of maintaining the practice (or, if you want to split hairs, clear consensus against a proposal prohibiting it, but reading the discussion shows very strong support for it.) There is consensus in favour of this practice, and that discussion was pretty heavily attended. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to view a list of articles recently moved to draft? I see this regarding finding drafts [21] but seems these include articles which originated as drafts. Is there a way to only view articles moved to draft as a means of oversight? DynaGirl (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at Special:Log/move and there isn't much in the way of finding this info easily. It seems like a filter could be set up to track moves from the mainspace to either userspace or the Draft: namespace. Killiondude (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reports setup on the subpages of User:JJMC89 bot/report/Draftifications. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If people want to delete articles without scrutiny there are cleverer ways of doing it than moving to draft. Thincat (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Most get sent to AfC as far as I know. The ones I see often get fixed up and returned to mainspace. In one case recently I disagreed with the draftification so strongly I returned it to mainspace and sent to AfD, but that is really unusual. Most draftifications I see make good sense. New page creators should watch their creations anyway. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• I appreciate the feedback. Again, I had never really ventured into moves and these discussions aren't easy to find (not even linked here but I trust the parties making the claims here). Since there isn't a system log that tracks this, I see oversight is a challenge, but that is just how it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe the majority of NPP editors use the MoveToDraft script (don't quote me on that) which does keep a log on user subpages. I assume it might be simple enough for the script's author to set up a global log more amenable to oversight. So that might be an option for a little more transparency. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

As JJMC89 notes above, his bot logs draftifications here Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a lawless area but I have found only a trickle of abuse. Sorting by creation date shows up the dubious ones. Thincat (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I see several that are moved back, a couple socks, etc. so I'm no less concerned now. I've bookmarked the bot page, but imho, this should have a system log, searchable by date or user. Same as our other logs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• It is my view that draftification is often a good response to an article on a probably notable topic which is not currently in good shape to remain in mainspace, particularly when it does not currently demonstrate notability clearly. I have done it on a number of occasions. I don't see why it should require admin rights, or any special permission beyond auto-confimed, which is required for any move, although I could see requiring extended confirmed. I dfo that that moving a draft to mainspace for the3 purpose of sending it to WP:AFD is a form of gaming the system and should be subject to sanction. This is true in my view whether the page had previously been in mainspace or not. I would favor a log of pages moved from mainspace to draft, including one maintained by bot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• This behavior by Bradv is an extremely disturbing breach of our deletion policy. He needs to cut that shit out or to lose tools. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it’s normal practice that the community has approved of (see my link to the village pump RfC/discussion above). Use of page mover in this way is actually one of the most common reasons for requesting the flag. It’s why I requested it before I got my sysop bit, and plenty of NPP regulars request it for the same reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin dashboard count oddities

Template:Admin dashboard - As I'm looking at the count for CSD, it says 133. I manually counted 43 and found no others listed. Likewise, Open SPI investigations says 156 - I didn't manually count them, but 156 seems high even for SPI. Why it is over counting on CSD, and possibly on SPI? — Maile (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There were quite a few G13's that were deleted earlier. Sometimes it takes a bit for the count to catch up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

For CSD yeah it takes time to update, for SPI Category:Open_SPI_cases does have 156 members, though ~50 are awaiting archival and ~50 are CU complete; the code was subtracting a category that has been deleted since 2014 to calculate open cases; I made it now subtract those awaiting archival (though with the number so high does it matter..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• A day later, we still have a greatly inflated count on the number of CSD. It's worse than yesterday. As I write this, we have 37 actual items at CSD, but the Dashboard count says it's 176. — Maile (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#CSD_backlog? (better place to discuss this), something strange with pagesincategory for the csd category. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding the high SPI count, as of this edit there are 4 cases only waiting for an administrator (this status means any administrator, not just an admin SPI clerk). That number is pleasantly low at the moment but is sometimes quite high. As a clerk I tend to avoid those cases because there are others that need attention from a clerk specifically, while any administrator can act on this set - the requests are typically from a non-admin clerk asking for an admin to review deleted edits or block an obvious sock, and they explain exactly what it is they need an admin to do. If someone interested would like to take a look at Category:SPI cases needing an Administrator from time to time (or watchlist it?) your efforts would be appreciated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata Infoboxes RfC closure request

Since the ANRFC request hasn't attracted much attention and this is quite an important, complex, and controversial RfC, requesting an admin, hopefully three, to fully assess and close RfC on the use of Wikidata in infoboxes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with a closure by a committee of three uninvolved editors. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems problematic to me that we cannot find candidates to close this... I mean, i understand why people are hesitant and that many of the familiar faces are in the discussion themselves, but somehow, we have to close this right. suggestions ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't regularly patrol ANRFC, though I probably should... but don't take a lack of closure as automatic "hesitation" on anyone's part. Sometimes big discussions just are a hurdle to get stuck into. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'll be on the panel, as long as someone else does all the work. Swarm ♠ 20:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that always the goal of group projects :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't mind taking a stab at writing a closing statement; I almost did that a few weeks ago, but decided it might not be the wise thing to do alone. As long as there are at least 2 other volunteers willing to review my statement before I add it & close the RfC, I'm fine with taking my share of the heat. (I figure after 15-16 years of watching stuff unfold at Wikipedia, I know something about the issues involved & can make a plausible closing statement. Especially about an issue I have no real interest in.) Is there someone besides Swarm willing to help bell the cat? -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've started drafting a closing statement, but have seen no interest from anyone else to assist me in this. While I consider the result fairly straightforward, & am willing to issue it alone if need be, any decision would be much more acceptable to all involved if it were not the opinion of a single person. (And if I encounter too much blowback over a solo decision, that may lead me to stop offering to close further RfC. That's not a threat, just an admission I'm not much of a hard ass.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd look at it, but I opined in the discussion, and made a comment in a related one, so that wouldn't work. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd offer to help, but I don't think I can be sufficiently objective, since I have a rather strong opinion on the topic. Deor (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Revdel query

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can the administration clarify for me why my recent comment at Talk:Bastard brothers has been considered so heinous as to warrant not just hatting but revdeling, while all the snidey comments and putdowns directed toward me in that thread are considered absolutely fine and not worthy of admonishment? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Much worse than that it was judged "intemperate". I must admit I read it during the 7 hours it was visible and thought it was perfectly reasonable. But these things never get reversed, do they. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I would support unrevdeling. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I also thought the last comment there, calling PCW a pedant, was quite offensive. But of course it's a bit tricky to compare it now with what was, or what wasn't, said afterwards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The post was rev-deleted using criteria #5 which I don't see would apply in this case. In addition, the use of RD#5 is supposed to include a clear summary as to why the edit is being rev-deleted, which didn't happen. Has anyone asked WereSpielChequers to explain the revision deletion?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, no, you are the first to ask. You are an admin, so you can still see the deleted edit. To my mind that comment, specifically the last six words of it, takes things into different territory. Earlier comments about pedanticism or saying that nobody cares about an article are not great, but in my judgement the edit that I deleted was sufficient to justify deleting it and my comment to its author. Feedback from others who've read the deleted material would be appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 08:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And why are the last 6 words so terribly offensive that nobody is allowed to see them? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And I did not say that nobody cares about an article; I said that nobody cares about that particular change to the article, which was apparent by the calling of it "pedantic" and the lack of response on the talk page for about a week. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Ponyo that the comment did not fit the criteria for RD5. I am assuming that WereSpielChequers deleted the comment under RD5 because the comment could not really be construed as "grossly" insulting nor offensive (although could be interpreted as being derogatory toward specific group of people), nor was it a BLP violation since it wasn't directed at anyone in specific. Instead it was just a rhetoric done in very poor taste and should not be repeated. Alex Shih (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows that my comment was not being derogatory to a specific group of people, and before people start going down the homophobia route, I will state here that I am what society terms a "gay man" (I don't like the term, but that's the generally used label), and I have spent lots of time in gay bars and even the odd drag bar. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, that is irrelevant. It doesn't change that the remark was done in poor taste, especially when considering the context that the remark was used to criticise the quality of the discussion, and therefore puts the metaphor you have used in a negative light. Whether or not the remarks warrants revision deletion is another question, and personally I think not really. I would have just asked you to strike your comment out. Alex Shih (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If the remark was done in poor taste, it was only a response to all the poor taste remarks made toward me. When you read the thread you will see that I do not respond to the first comments directed toward me about great aunts and pedantry etc. I stick to the "comment on content, not contributors" mantra (even though the other user is not during the whole thread). But I have to have it thrown at me again, don't I, as a parting shot. Last year I was similarly abused by another editor, and in my ignorant belief that the WMF cares about conduct, I took the matter straight to ANI, where my complaint was brushed aside. From that I learned that I shall stand for myself, because it's obvious the WMF and its representatives won't. But now I find that if I stand for myself in the face of abuse, a WMF representative comes along to silence me. How nice. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Good job he's not just "buzzing about removing text which he doesn’t understand"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've undone the rev-del as the comment falls a long way short of what rev-del is intended for. Fram (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with unrevdelling, the comment itself wasn't necessary. Neither was Giano's haughty and defensive response to PaleCloudedWhite's reasonable argument that "While the Bastards worked in a provincial style this should not detract from a positive evaluation of their work" is peacockery, because it very obviously was. As it is, the offending bit of waffle has been excised from the article, and everyone should find something better to do. Fish+Karate 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page moved, auto archiving not updated

Can someone check and see if I got this fixed correctly. I was using OneClickArchiver on Talk:Alex Jones, but the page had been moved in January but the auto archiving settings were not updated, the page name was not changed. The script put the archives at Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 13 and Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 14 which I moved the contents to Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 14 I think everything is OK but Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 14 will need to be deleted. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Note - The moving admin is away til June. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's a first time for everything. I'm actually not "away" until June, but I have limited availability. This is within my bandwidth, though. bd2412 T 20:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@BD2412: Sorry - FlightTime (open channel) 20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Block review of Quek157

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since this has been raised on my talk page by enough users, I'll bring it here for review: I blocked Quek157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) last night with a NOTHERE rationale, partially because it was the quickest thing I could get to that had an indef block, but also because at the time I felt like it described their behavior. This was being raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#User:Quek157 at the same time, but I did this on my own without being aware exactly of what the ANI was about. I described them on my talk page as a crazy person who was being disruptive in just about everything he did, which I think is a fair description (see: 1, 2, 3,4, 5, and 6, where he was warned to stop using ANI for frivolous requests.)

From his deleted contributions we have The Canvas Hotel and Talk:The Canvas Hotel, which occurred yesterday which Chrissymad adequately described here though for any non-admins (him essentially trying to pad his CSD log with multiple nominations). Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/154.235.178.2, an SPI filed about IP edits from 20 days ago, Draft:Ocean Nuclear, where we have the double CSD nominations again.

After looking at the CSD log-padding from yesterday, I saw this, where he removed a valid tag on the grounds that someone who wasn't part of NPP couldn't place it, which given the other issues with CSD, led me to revoke NPR. After that, he decided to retire and placed the retired banner on ANI, Kudpung's talk, my talk. At this point, I was worried he was going to continue spamming that banner on any page he had been active, so I decided to block. Given the past disruption, I thought indef made sense, and I went with NOTHERE both because it was easier on mobile, but also because at the time and given the interactions with others that I had observed, that was the sense I got. I changed it to disruptive editing per CIR this morning after more people raised it on my talk page.

I still think the block was good, and is still needed to prevent future disruption to the project, but I'll open it up for review since this went to ANI and my block was largely based on factors outside the ANI, the issues raised there not really impacting my block, though they do go hand in hand with it.

Anyway, I'm opening up the block for community review to see if there is a consensus to overturn it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• From my interactions with them, I don't think WP:NOTHERE is the best rationale. I got the picture of someone who genuinely wanted to help but didn't really know how to go about it, and perhaps had some struggles with English proficiency (they seem to be from Singapore, though English is taught and spoken there). So if anything, it'd probably be reasonable as a WP:CIR-type block. ansh666 19:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree with that, which is why I changed it this morning. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block I think any of the three would have sufficed, CIR, disruptive editing or not here, particularly the first two. I gave several examples on Tony's talk of why I thought this was appropriate but there are dozens of others both deleted and not. At best, if Quek was not disruptive, they were definitely incompetent, causing disruption and I do not say that lightly or with any malice. Their responses to people were often rushed and incomprehensible and they had little understanding of NPP or even basic communication. Their retiring under a cloud is also evidence to me that they did not intend to work through the issues or address them. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block too given the disruption and inability to stop it after concerns were raised on his TP. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block - reading through the history of this, I see a lot of IDHT and incompetence. The 'taking my ball and going home' attitude, posting {{retired}} in various places, is the icing on the cake. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment A restriction might be more in keeping with the problems. He appears willing to learn and get out and do things that are more advanced, but is stumbling on some of them. Singapore English, like its sister Malaysian English which I am very familor with, is quite distinct from American or British English and that explains why some of his comments read as they do. Nothing wrong with Singapore English. Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Out of respect for the blocking admin I won't go as far as to call it a bad block, but an over-reaching one, IMHO. I make no comment on the whole NOTHERE palaver except to say that if editors are being described in the most egregious terms it is possible to be blocked for, then perhaps leave blockings to the desktop...?!  :)
  As has been noted, they undoubtedly made constructive edits, and substantially so. But they have not, naturally, attracted attention. Part of Qedk's problem is one of language. Not to the extent of incompetence, but sufficiently to make it easy for editors that do not wish to have patience with them not to have to do so. What we have here is a newbie who has committed the cardinal sin of trying to do too much too soon. I have been, also to some extent, following (not hard to do of course when they pop up on the watchlist at every refresh!), as evinced by some discussions on my talk. I did advise them (advice encased in a barnstar) to slow down, but perhaps I should have been more emphatic.
  As I said elsewhere, I doubted—and I have read nothing here to persuade me otherwise—that there was a problem that could not be solved by education. Now we are here, of course, it's somewhat too late for that...but full on indef? No. Topic ban from deletion discussions? Fair enough. Mentoring? Absolutely. Rope, as they say, is cheap. But I think we all could have been slightly more helpful in terms of advice, once upon a time, and here we are. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I largely concur with Serial Number 54129, especially the sentiment about "the cardinal sin of trying to do too much too soon." — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Their numerous edits to Canberra MRT station and other mainspace pages seem reasonable. I think a much lesser restriction may have sufficed (e.g. a six month ban from opening discussions at WP:AN/I and nominating pages for deletion). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

He said before that he was going to keep to article space, but didn't actually do that. That would have solved a lot of his problems. Natureium (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block but if there is to be an unblock, I would only support that under protest, and subject to Quek being banned from editing any other namespace than main 'article namespace' and no maintenance work - so no AN/ANI/AIV etc, no NPP/AFC and no CSD/PROD/XfD work, just article writing. We are, realistically, at the stage where Quek's very small number of useful changes (often spread out over 5 or more individual edits) come at the cost of people like TonyBallioni spending hours of time managing Quek. Tony's a great writer, he could have rustled up a GA or three, or gone far with an FA in the time he's worked to fix Quek's messes and tried to get them headed in the right direction for the umpteenth time. Good faith contributors can very occasionally be a net negative to the project and I'm afraid at this time, Quek is a net negative. Nick (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse I don't feel a strong need to pick at nits over the rationale, but this flameout could've been predicted weeks ago. This wasn't the triggering event I'd have chosen, but Tony made a tough block and saved us all some more disruption. Would be happy to try some conditions for a return, but that's really up to them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block Competence is required. While Quek wasn't a malicious user, they were too immature and too incompetent to constructively contribute here. The endless spamming of comments and replies, spamming threads at ANI, incompetent NPP, unintelligible comments, highly dramatic conduct, outright lies that they were an experienced user who has been here since 2007, rejection and deletion of warnings, refusal to listen to good faith advice, I'd say all of these things validate a NOTHERE block, but even if they didn't, a CIR block, or a general DE block would easily stand in for a NOTHERE rationale. Part of me sympathizes with Quek, because he fundamentally seems like a nice person, but he's too unhinged and disruptive to be anywhere near a net positive. Swarm ♠ 21:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block This user is clearly a net negative, and is unwilling to change his behavior in response to the numerous concerns by numerous editors raised to him. If it were a correctable issue of CIR, my opinion might be different, but he has shown himself to be incorrigible and obsessed with inserting himself everywhere. There are probably several reasons that could have been given for blocking him, but the end result is the same. People can stop cleaning up after him. He accused me of stalking him (and helpfully provided a wikilink to the word creepy), and while I had landed on that page from my watchlist, I had been checking after him because although I didn't see any one thing worth blocking, it all adds up to a mess detrimental to the project. Natureium (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block my suspicion arose at an AFD, and a play on a disambiguation page West Coast Highway. I figured initially it was really not worth pursuing [22]. However I went to the users talk page regarding the behaviour at the disambiguation [23] and was subsquently reverted. I have since spent some time at Tony Ballioni's talk page querying others regarding the behaviour. I agree with others, that there were signs of a positive contribution. However, behaviour on being challenged, has a pattern which is not acceptable and not a net positive in the end. JarrahTree 00:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Competence is required and unfortunately at this present time this editor doesn't have that competence to edit here, As noted above the editor is a net negative here and no amount of mentoring will help them, As a side note I will say NOTHERE was probably the wrong choice but either way endorse block. –Davey2010^Talk 02:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• I will remain in dissent; believing Wikipedia would be a slightly better place if no block had been placed for us to endorse. I fully agree with Serial Number 54129 and hope he will transclude his own RfA very soon. Even today.--John Cline (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current events vandalism spam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The current events pages are currently getting lots of vandalism. Can someone please step in and stop this?  Nixinova  T  C  07:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Solomon203

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Solomon203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nipponese Dog Calvero
• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nipponese Dog Calvero

Meta has globally unlocked Solomon203, and there are some evidence that it may not be a sock of Nipponese Dog Calvero. Please further check to see if need to unblock the user or not. --B dash (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It was argued in the Steward request that Solomon203 (talk · contribs) is a different person from Nipponese Dog Calvero (talk · contribs). If it *is* the same person then the block would obviously be kept. The global unlock was not exactly a clean bill of health; it just shifts responsibility to three individual wikis (including this one) as to whether they want to unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unenforceable consensus to revert Jimbo's unilateral page move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 19 May, Jimbo Wales moved Meghan Markle to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. He did so without any explanation and against the consensus reached on the talk page, while the page was under move protection in an effort to prevent undiscussed moves. There was, of course, immmediate objection to this move. A move back was requested within minutes and was recently closed. Jimbo Wales said that he had made the move because "it was fun to do so", adding: "In similar circumstances in the future, I hope to do it again." Several administrators have already weighed in on the issue on the article talk page. Dekimasu said that the "move should never have taken place per the procedure explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves", that it "should have been reverted", and that the outcome of the move discussion "most consistent with normal operating procedure at WP:RM would be to move the page back to the stable title." DrKay closed the move discussion, saying that Jimbo Wales's move was "performed outwith the normal processes of Wikipedia" and that the "logic of the arguments below favors the common name, Meghan Markle", but that he could not "reverse a decision of the founder". NeilN's prediction was accurate.

I am not here to seek any sanctions. I only have a few questions for administrators:

• Is this really a matter in which two community decisions, based on Wikipedia policy, should be ignored? Are regular Wikipedia users voluntary slaves who produce the content but do not get to decide about it?
• Does Jimbo Wales own the content of Wikipedia after all? I am aware that WP:Ownership of content suggests not, but this charade has proven that policy amounts to nothing.
• Why was the move discussion allowed to proceed if (as NeilN had predicted) the article was to remain at the new title regardless of its outcome? I suspect it was because a) there was a hope that the community would support the decision of Jimbo Wales, thus sparing Wikipedia the embarrassment his action had caused, b) forbidding the discussion would have seemed tyrannical. Instead of closing it right away, the discussion was allowed to drag on, eventually reaching the monstrous 150000 character count and leading to (in the words of Dekimasu) a "diversion of a large number of hours of a significant cross-section of editors that could have been better spent elsewhere." Put simply, we discussed for nothing and reached a decision that meant nothing.
• Now what?

I implore everyone not to discuss the title of the article here. That has been discussed ad nauseam. What I would like to know is what this all means in terms of policy, procedure, and precedent. Surtsicna (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• I mean, I don't see why we can't move the page back. At-least, if we have a discussion here first with a consensus to do that per policy guideline etc, then it is less likely to cause a disturbance. Keeping the page there would completely accede that we the community are less than Jimbo/undermine community processes which I don't think would be a good outcome. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• JW is almost irrelevant here as an editor; his value is as a figurehead, a go-to guy for the press. But he certainly has no superior position, and, indeed past events have suggested a lack of suitability for adminship. This was an egregious move, outside all process, making a laughing stock of the community, consensus and procedure. What is the point in putting time and labour into this thing—the two most important commodities we possess—if they can just be overturned on a whim? The word is—ironically considering the original question was one of royalty—absolutism, and that was got rid of in 1647, 176 or 1848 depending on your very western historical experience. It has no place here, and nor is it a "bit of fun." —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Re: "against the consensus reached on the talk page": Evidence, please. I see a strong consensus in favor of moving Meghan Markle to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Any editor would have been free to make that move. Yes, Jimbo is getting special treatment here; we are being asked to undo a page move that nobody would have complained about if someone else had made the page move. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"That nobody would have complained about"—moving through protection while a discussion was taking place? Correct about special treatment: any other admin would have been hauled in front of the beak and defrocked. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Rubbish You get defrocked by a bishop, not the beak. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The argument and discussion about not moving the page to Duchess of Sussex started weeks before the move was even made, so I find "nobody would have complained about if someone else had made the page move" to be utterly meritless. And WP:NOTVOTE, most of the support !votes were not policy based. Anyhow, as Surtsicna said, there is no reason to rehash the move here - the close was done, per our community processes, and unless that is contested, we should follow and move the page back to Meghan Markle. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Had I been following the page I would have made the same move. This is whining for the fun of whining because he is Jimbo. Legacypac (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think you would have made the same move. The page was move protected in deference to talk page discussions regarding the title. And Jimbo unilaterally moved the page anyway for the fun of it, by his own admission. This has already been explained above, so there is really no excuse for your careless casting of aspersions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Legacypac is a liar regarding what he would do! Who knew? Oh, wait. There is another explanation which I won't get into because it contains words like "jerk" and "posting accusations of casting aspersions while casting aspersions". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh? Lepricavark (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm a bit more concerned about how an admin interpreted a discussion that was 110-60 in support of the move as a consensus to overturn the move. He's damn right that move would cause further disruption, but it's not because Jimbo has "special powers". DrKay, that was an abusive close IMO and would have been an absolute shitshow if you actioned it. You can't just vaguely say that the minority view is stronger and thus they have the consensus. That's a supervote. The point of WP:NOTVOTE is to clarify that we do not have a system of rule by simple majority. It's not to enable closers to arbitrarily throw out an overwhelming majority view just because they feel the other side made their case "more strongly". To toss a supermajority view like that, you'd have to thoroughly and convincingly make a case explaining how the minority view reflects an overarching consensus that overrides the local consensus view. And that's not even getting into the fact that you double-supervoted by blocking your own reading of consensus based on the fact that 'the community can't override Jimbo', which, AFAIK, is not rooted in anything whatsoever. Swarm ♠ 15:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: interpreted it in the same vein (though maybe thinking no consensus). A consensus against may be too much to say, but a no consensus result would be extremely reasonable as a large portion of the support was not in the realm of being policy based. And most importantly, no consensus would mean a move back too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The propsosal was to overturn Jimbo’s move. A “no consensus” would mean maintaining the status quo and not overturning the move without consensus. Swarm ♠ 15:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's it not how requested moves work, (see here, "However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title.", which is in accordance with WP:NOCONSENSUS too, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted."), that is not how consensus works in general - in general, no consensus means back to the stable version. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter, Surtsicna, and DrKay: If I had seen the request for reversion at WP:RMTR, before there had been significant contributions to the discussion, I would have reverted it immediately regardless of who performed the move. Then a normal move discussion could have taken place with the proposed target as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. I do not believe this should have been considered wheel warring, nor do I believe that a close that moved the page back to the stable title as a result of the move discussion would have been wheel warring–it would have been based both upon standard procedure and (lack of) community consensus. I did not go back to see how or why the WP:RMTR request was turned down, and did not take note of the discussion at all until several days into the process, at which point it seemed clear that closing the move request would be more disruptive than allowing it to continue. (To be clear, the move of Prince Harry should also have been reverted immediately, because the title was the result of a previous consensus in favor of a move to that title, and there were no less than five previous move requests on the page. That move, too, was made out of process to little benefit.) However, as I implied in my comments at the bottom of the move request, there is a chance that I would have closed the discussion as "no consensus, revert to stable title" were I both awake at the time the period was up and willing/able to spend the next week in an extended dispute; the "numerical vote" being cited here does not take into account comments that should have been discounted for lack of rationale or outright disregard for the way titles are determined on Wikipedia, and the contents of the discussion itself do not appear to show a policy-based consensus in favor of the new title. In this case, I am most disappointed that the discussions on moving the pages should have been positive ones, with editors both new and old understanding that they were contributing to decisions about making a change; instead, the move requests were about procedure and reversion, showing off our internecine side. ...relinking my comments at Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex#Question for administrator for those who may not have seen it. Dekimasuよ! 16:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The WP:RMTR history from May 19 is also disappointing. There was a request in to revert the undiscussed move before anyone had commented in the open move request–the move should have been reverted immediately. Instead, the contestation was itself "contested" by an IP editor, another action that is not within the normal WP:RM process. Technical requests to revert recent, undiscussed moves to the stable title should always go through. The IP editor reinstated a reversion of this edit, and by this time, with several editors having commented in the talk page discussion, the request was turned down by an uninvolved patroller with the edit summary "Active RM in place; please wait for it to concluded." I note that the patroller was not an admin, and so could not have reverted through protection. I do not mean to call out the experienced editor who turned down the request, but having not yet been open for an hour, the move should also have been reverted at that point instead of being turned down. Dekimasuよ! 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Dekimasu, are non-closing administrators unable to enforce the consensus determined by the closing administrator or are they afraid of repercussions? Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I would expect that a non-closing administrator would consult with the closing administrator before taking that sort of step. Otherwise, that would seem to be closer to wheel warring than the reversion of Jimbo. Also, as pointed out by Galobtter, it appears that this would not be enforcing consensus, but enforcing "no consensus," despite the title you've given this section. If there is a simple way to rephrase the title, it might be good to do so. Dekimasuよ! 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• My suggestion: 1) respectfully open a new section on Jimbo's talk page; citing the AN close (if memory serves the AN close said something like 'constitutional crises') and the Move close 2) Make it clear that the focus is what his editing/admin "powers" are and how he views they should be treated and his plans for them with respect to the future (please do not allow others to sidetrack to the WMF, where he is a board member and thus has complex fiduciary duties, keep it focused on editor/admin here and try to not have it be distracted with rearguing the move). 3) Directly but again respectfully, put to him, his thoughts on a WP:Arbitration case to clarify. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I think the close was quite accurate. Arguments which were not policy-based (many of them listed no real basis at all, many others fell into the classic "Official name" fallacy) were properly discounted. Of course I may be biased because the close was in accord with the view I expressed during the discussion. I do not see why this should be unenforcable. Community consensus has resulted in overruling unilateral actions by Jimbo in the past, particularly in the case of WP:CSD#T1 which the CSD page now describes as: T1. Divisive and inflammatory templates: Enacted by Jimmy Wales without formally assessing consensus during the userbox wars. Was repealed in February 2009 (discussion). Instead, "attack pages" (G10) may be applicable in some cases; otherwise, use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for userboxes and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion for all other templates. In line with that precedent, and the close of the RM, I call on an agreement here for an uninvolved admin to undo the move, and return the page to the stable name. I am not uninvolved, or I would be willing to do the move back. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

DES, your involvement in the discussion is not an obstacle to enforcing the consensus determined by another administrator. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, the closure should be made by an uninvolved administrator. DrKay closed the discussion but, in a very unusual twist, declared himself unable to act upon the consensus. I realize that this is a difficult situation. You say that administrators are allowed to revert Jimbo but nobody wants to do that. Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said when I closed the last discussion, it's going to be tough to go against Jimbo without help of the ArbCom. That's what I suggest to get a ruling on this. It's unlikely to be solved on AN. Andrevan@ 18:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it is Jimbo or because of first mover advantage? If the former, well, it shouldn't matter and indeed given his comment about it being a bit of fun, I'd expect him to self-revert. Or ditch the tools. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The closing comments were quite fair, although an argument could be made that because DrKay had expressed a strong opinion in the related discussion at Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, it should have been left to someone else to close. In DrKay's defense, the opinion on Harry was not identical to the interpretation of the discussion at Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex; there he appears to advocate retaining Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex rather than reverting to the stable title Prince Harry. In the end, however, both of these positions would result in retaining the titles instituted by fiat. As far as Jimbo is concerned, there is ArbCom precedent (though it shouldn't be necessary to refer to ArbCom for this) affirming that "Any page move that is or is likely to be controversial should be discussed beforehand on the page's talk page, and/or at any other pertinent location. The methods outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves represent a best practice approach for such circumstances." Of course that should apply to Jimbo. Dekimasuよ! 20:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Her husband gets the title Duke of Sussex, which make her Duchess of Sussex. Why is that so complicated? to have these in their article titles? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you read the close and the discussion, it partly had to do with women we cover in our encyclopedia who married a king, or married a titled prince, or married a British duke, so sure, disagree, but those women and those article titles still exist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not discuss the page title here. It has been discussed enough at the appropriate venue. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• If there is no clear consensus for the move, the title should be moved back, and the situation can be looked at again in a few months. That's the usual procedure. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That's what every administrator here has said, SarahSV. The closing administrator said the same. Yet we are now in an embarrassing position where no administrator wants to implement the outcome of a move discussion. Why is that? Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Surtsicna, I can't explain why DrKay acted as he did. If he didn't want to close it (and we always know that closing an RM might mean having to move or undo a move), he should have left it alone. Moving this back is not wheel-warring, because it was moved out of process. However, as a move review has started, it would not be appropriate to move it now, unless Jimbo is willing to revert himself. I've left a comment to that effect in the move review, and pinged him. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think it matters that much as far as Wikipedia's service to the English speakers of the world is concerned, because a Google search for "Meghan Markle" goes to the renamed article. So, no emergency here. As a matter of policy, however, Jimbo was very wrong. For a precedent, we have the biography of Princess Grace of Monaco under her professional name, Grace Kelly. Why not do the same with the Meghan Markle article? YoPienso (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• I know the OP was not asking for any sanctions, but I think there does need to be one: desysop User:Jimbo Wales on the basis that he unconscionably over-rode a move protection just because he thought it would be fun to do so. Founder or not, we cannot have admins acting like that here. StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jimbo is not an admin, he has a different flag that gives him infinite power. That's partly why I say this can't be handled through a simple community consensus. Edited: actually, I'm wrong, per Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales#Founder_flag Andrevan@ 20:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice link; it takes one directly to an example of where JW wheel-warred . Worth considering, any admins who are afraid of doing the same. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean considering a desysop obviously has to go to ARBCOM, but we should be able to handle the reversion of the move here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

StAnselm, perhaps you think that repeating the " just because he thought it would be fun to do so" lie often enough it will be accepted as truth, but here in the real world it is possible to do something that is supported by the consensus of the community and because it is fun to do. So please knock it off. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

How was there WP:CONSENSUS when he took his admin action? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well; I suppose there was not. If JW had waited for a consensus to emerge, he would have had the high ground. He didn't, and has not. Shame. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Then arbcom seems the way to go, because if admins are making arguments with different claims about a fundamental policy like WP:CONSENSUS on the same set of facts, we should have it settled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 21:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no volunteers. This is one of those battles where everyone will fight to the last drop of some other guy's blood—which is quite wise since ArbCom would not do a thing and there would be a mordant hurricane of flying feces until 8 or whatever it is of them got around to declining. Jbh ^Talk 02:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll run for admin on a platform of reverting the move and immediately resigning the tools. I really don't care less about the admin role but I do care that Jimbo created this mess and that he has created others in the past. Those admins who think he is somehow special need to consider where their loyalties lie because the community should come first, not him. - Sitush (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I will stand behind you 100% – right behind… you know… for cover . But seriously, I agree completely with your sentiment. Personally I think Jimbo should loose his admin bit or, at the very lease, be put on formal notice that a repeat abuse will get his bit yanked. Again, I know that will not happen but it should..

I am so disappointed with DrKay. If they did not have the fortitude to enact the consensus they found then they had no business closing it. They made the tough call on the consensus they read and I do respect them for that. Now though, the proper thing would be for them to finish what they started. Jbh ^Talk 05:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI: A move review of Dr. Kay's close has been started: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 May Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't alter anything, nor do the comments here by people trying to relitigate or interpret. The issue is Jimbo acting as a dictator, which is annoying enough on his own talk page but should not be allowed to infest the rest of the project. - Sitush (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it will obviously be used in these discussions, so I am less convinced that it won't matter but you are correct, it should not matter to a separate inquiry on Jimbo's actions/power, which probably now has to take place at arbcom, but do you have a separate proposal? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm uncertain about the rest of this, but my reading of the situation is that Jimbo is unlikely to object if reversed with a clear consensus (he didn't indicate he was acting in any official capacity, and hasn't objected to the discussion of reversing him despite being aware of it.) That said, I think that the more important issue is that DrKay's closure was also improper. Admins should never close a discussion with an outcome they're unwilling to implement, and his close effectively sought to create a precedent of "Jimbo is above the rules, even when not acting in an official capacity", which is a serious mistake when Jimbo is taking about hoping to do things like this again. Having the move stay open for a while wouldn't have done any harm. (Given the ambiguous nature of the consensus, even waiting until someone closed it with a consensus to endorse the move would have done less harm - I would argue that DrKay's closure was actually the worst possible outcome he could have given us. Jimbo choosing to IAR and then having his action endorsed by the community wouldn't have been such a big deal, since it happens even with other admins. Having DrKay unambiguously say, in his role as an admin, that Jimbo's move is not endorsed and yet still cannot be reversed is what caused this problem.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Jimbo has exactly as much power as the community gives him. This community governs itself. Enact the close like normal. If Jimbo reverts, he gets desyssoped for wheelwarring like any other admin. Not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• The close is currently at move review. I intend to close the move review and enact the resulting close, whatever it may be, after the move review has persisted for an acceptable period of time, assuming no-one else does so first. Commenting very narrowly on whether an admin can reverse an action by Jimbo: As Jimbo's move was not marked as an office action, it holds none of the authority associated with the WMF acting unilaterally. See WP:CONEXCEPT. None of the bullet points are met, so I see no reason not to enact a consensus that Jimbo's move was mistaken (or a lack of consensus for Jimbo's move), if that's what emerges. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Per Special:UserRights/Jimbo Wales he holds the sysop, CU/OS, and founder permissions. So he is an admin. The founder permission gives him the ability to add/remove all permissions, but this can be removed by a steward if necessary as with all above-sysop permissions. I think that any such discussion is premature, however, and that this can probably be resolved by talking with him and enforcing whatever the community consensus ends up being for the page's title. Also worth noting that office actions are performed, these days, by staff and not board members. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Surtsicna wrote above, in response to my comment, that my involvement in the RM discussion should be no bar to enacting the move in accord with the consensus as determined by the closer of the RM discussion. There should be no question: I expressed a strongly worded opinion during the RM, and during the spin-off RfC about changing WP:COMMONNAME to defer to the naming convention for royalty. If there was support from several admins, amounting to a consensus here, I would be willing to do the move and take any heat for it. However, I for one believe strongly that Process is Important. This is part of why I objected to the out-of-process move. But it also means that I am reluctant to short-circuit the Move Review now in progress, where I have also expressed a view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × several) I haven't really been following this situation, although it's been popping up on pretty much every noticeboard I do follow, so consider these general comments. If Jimbo is using his powers to enact an interpretation of consensus in a muddy situation, or enacting an obvious consensus in the spirit of WP:SNOW, this is what we expect of administrators. On the other hand, if Jimbo is poking his way into controversial situations where administrators have already placed restrictions, and is forcing his own supervote through those restrictions using his peculiar set of userrights when a consensus is not clear because he thinks things should be a certain way, well, he's using administrative rights to gain an advantage in a dispute, and that's a thing that we remove admin rights for.

The worse part of the whole thing is that, when asked about it, Jimbo could very easily have explained his rationale, that the move to a new title (or whatever) was probably inevitable and he was short-cutting the discussion. That would be less than ideal, but it would have been much less arrogant and disrespectful then saying it was because it was fun. If Jimbo has the attitude that it's "fun" to do controversial things that divide the community (c.f. the many discussions resulting directly from his action) then we have a word for that: trolling. There's enough division here without the founder of Wikipedia trolling his own project and starting fights for the lulz, and it makes me not want to bother participating here any more. I know it won't happen because Wikipedia is not a whatever, but I would support removing Jimbo's special userrights if such a discussion occurred. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The "because it was fun" meme has been overdone by those who disagreed with the Jimbo. Here is Jimbo's explanation in the move discussion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

He did give additional reasons, but they were opinions he should have expressed in a move request, not attempt to present as a defense of making a controversial move through protection unilaterally. As we all know, the explanation should precede the move when it is clear that some editors will object. In his comment, Jimbo seems interested in pointing to WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:NCROY. As far as WP:NAMECHANGES is concerned, his Google Trends search is based upon a misspelling, and ignores the more relevant data, which would be a comparison of the two possibilities (something like this, perhaps). This problem with his argument would have been pointed out in a normal move request, and discussion could have moved on to the relative merits of naming the discussion according to WP:NCROY or WP:COMMONNAME, etc. Dekimasuよ! 17:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If some of ya are really that upset about Jimbo as an administrator? Then seek getting his administrative tools removed. Regardless of the result, the attempt itself would certainly find its place on the next edition of Signpost. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Really upset? It's just for any admin to plunk down their tools in enforcing their content edits is bad ad-mining (if we don't say what is bad admining, admins might continue on, bad-admining) - and admins should know this - not only does this bad admiring lead to discussions like this, but for goodness sake just let the content discussion go-on (participate as an editor if you want) and everything rolls along with nary a distraction or board-talk. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo tends to go inactive until the crap blows over in situations like this. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I tried to move it back, but got "Database error. To avoid creating high replication lag, this transaction was aborted because the write duration (4.1665854454041) exceeded the 3 second limit. If you are changing many items at once, try doing multiple smaller operations instead. [WwvSDQpAICoAAKDKXt4AAABT] 2018-05-28 09:55:35: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBTransactionSizeError"" So it seems we are now effectively hostage of a "fun" move by the cofounder, and not just "morally" hostage because the closer of the move discussion didn't dare go against the founder, even though their close clearly advocated this... What a total fuckup. I'll try again by moving the talk page and archives separately, but all of this could easily have been avoided if the original moved had undone his change once there were this many policy-based complaints about it. Fram (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, doing it in two times worked, so the "unenforceable" conclusion has been done, in line with the guidance at the top of Wikipedia:Move review: "While the requested move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring." Fram (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Eventually, it will be moved to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex again & Prince Harry to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex again. A growing number of sources for both, will see to that. GoodDay (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COMMONNAME. You may be surprised, too. Contrary to what many people outside of the UK appear to think, the style used for most members of the peerage etc is not that most commonly used in sources outside of official documents. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Fram. Surtsicna (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm late to this discussion, but will attempt to answer the questions anyway:
  1. Is this really a matter in which two community decisions, based on Wikipedia policy, should be ignored? Are regular Wikipedia users voluntary slaves who produce the content but do not get to decide about it?

     No, I don't think it is such a matter. We do and will continue to make our decisions based on policy and well-established decision-making processes such as WP:RM and WP:AfD. Jimbo could in theory decide to try to enforce his own will on matters, outside of that process, but I'm not sure there's direct evidence that was the case here. More that he didn't really see what the fuss was about. He hasn't so far gone beyond the single original page move in his attempt to prevail in this matter.

  2. Does Jimbo Wales own the content of Wikipedia after all? I am aware that WP:Ownership of content suggests not, but this charade has proven that policy amounts to nothing.

     Jimbo definitely does not own the content of Wikipedia. Legally, all prose is released under something like a copyleft basis, and is attributable to the people who made each modification. That's why the content can be freely copied and hosted or printed elsewhere, as long as it is attributed correctly. However, there is a caveat here - Jimbo Wales (through his control of the Wikimedia foundation) does own the servers that Wikipedia is hosted on. Thus he has the technical and legal ability to override any and all community decisions through direct interventions on the software. In that sense we are slaves to him, and our only remedy if he really gets touch is our WP:Right to fork, i.e. to start a new version of Wikipedia on other servers outside of Wikimedia, using the current GNU-licensed text as a starting point. Wikivoyage attempted that using the content of Wikitravel, although I'd say their success in taking over the reins from the original is debatable there.

  3. Why was the move discussion allowed to proceed if (as NeilN had predicted) the article was to remain at the new title regardless of its outcome? I suspect it was because a) there was a hope that the community would support the decision of Jimbo Wales, thus sparing Wikipedia the embarrassment his action had caused, b) forbidding the discussion would have seemed tyrannical. Instead of closing it right away, the discussion was allowed to drag on, eventually reaching the monstrous 150000 character count and leading to (in the words of Dekimasu) a "diversion of a large number of hours of a significant cross-section of editors that could have been better spent elsewhere." Put simply, we discussed for nothing and reached a decision that meant nothing.

     Given my assertion above that the discussion is binding like any other, this question is moot. It carried on because it was proper for it to do so.

  4. Now what?

     I guess we proceed with the move review at WP:MRV. I just voted there that the decision to move back to Meghan Markle should be respected, and I hope that's what will prevail. It doesn't seem like the discussion will endorse Jimbo's right to overrule all discussions, which would be a worrying development if it did.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking for myself, this (along with the related user talk p. discussion) makes a magnificent example of the extraordinary fuss that can be made on Wikipedia over something where not only are the merits of the actual issue equivocal, but the matter is utterly trivial, since it affects neither content nor usability. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo controversy + culture wars + pedantry. It’s Wikipedian heaven. DeCausa (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• By the time this all in said and done, the Wikipedia community will have wasted hundreds of manhours on this incident. A glaring instance of disruptive editing, one that any normal person would be desysopped for at the very least. As it is, a surprisingly large number of people have expressed that they support doing that on at least a sentimental level. Between what people have expressed here and the fact that its clear the move review will overturn to the original (now current) title, it is quite clear the community does not intend to tolerate this kind of interference. Jimbo Wales may have found this all quite fun, but we are not amused, and I think he should read this outrage as a sign that further abuses are likely to result in his being lynched. At least the media haven't taken to reporting on this debacle yet. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:IAR has always been policy. This was an excellent use of IAR, forestalling potentially months of bullshit like that around the Sarah Brown article. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, IAR is policy. But there's nothing in IAR that says Jimbo has special privileges to use IAR to overrule the community, just because the issue at hand is one of his pet issues. As far as I can tell, your efforts to get Jimbo to wave his magic wand on the Sarah Brown issue (repeatedly) were ignored by the great man, and that discussion was eventually decided by consensus like any other.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

One thing this does show is the ability to repeat and repeat, as someone responded to you a week ago, IAR does not mean IOE Ignore Other Editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• With Wikipedia:Move review doing its work, I think it's time to close this. I find it doubtful that anyone is going to ArbCom, and that's about all that would be left to be done here. Dekimasuよ! 21:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Moatassemakmal requesting to be unblocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moatassemakmal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi everyone!

This user has made a request through UTRS to be unblocked.

The user was blocked way back in 2014 initially by Connormah for disruptive editing. They were blocked indefinitely for that, then Yamla changed the block settings in 2016 because they'd been evading their block. The block in 2014 was for adding unsourced information such as this edit where they've also added a threat to get someone fired in the edit summary.

I feel it important to note that they also threatened violence before and issued a death threat. Plus they socked.

The user has made an appeal to UTRS to be unblocked, they have said that they are sorry for their previous actions and they regret them. They've said that they've reformed and learned the error of their ways, a CheckUser request showed that there have been no socks in the last 6 months but I also feel it's important to mention that CheckUser can only check the IP address that the UTRS request was made from.

As per the standard offer, I am therefore starting a discussion here for the community to decide if the user should be unblocked.--5 albert square (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment they managed to get indef blocked in 2 weeks after registering in February-March 2014. I'll wait for Yamla to comment to !vote; there are some *very* ugly diffs here (from 2016) but it's certainly possible they've matured since then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm sorry, a death threat is a deal breaker, no matter when it was issued. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose no death threats. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, due to the death threat and an excessive history of block evasion via IP addresses. If my memory serves, their edits were rather low-quality, too, frequently changing well-cited information to different, uncited information. It's not impossible I'm mistaken on this point, but I think my memory is good. However, aside from the death threat, there are general competency concerns here. Additionally, their UTRS request contains several falsehoods, such as how long they've been dormant (6 months is plausible and matches what I found doing range checks, though I don't have checkuser access, but the UTRS request states they've been dormant much longer, which is not true) and doesn't even directly touch on the physical threats. I understand this is disappointing to Moatassemakmal but I can't in good conscience support an unblock, and suggest they may be happier elsewhere. Disclaimer: As previously noted, I replaced an indefinite block for disruption, with an indefinite block for evasion. I also blocked many of the IP addresses. --Yamla (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I wasn't active when these things went down, but, yeah, a death threat is a game-ender. - Donald Albury 00:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm for giving someone second chances, however death threats are a different story. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Threats of any kind should not be tolerated. Blackmane (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yamla's comment their UTRS request contains several falsehoods and the nature of their editing history. I'm not in the "never" camp as many of the contributors here are, but I wouldn't support an unblock for at least 2 more years. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Certain mild or ambiguous threats can perhaps be forgiven. But not death threats. I have received them and they threw my life into chaos. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328 and others above. Jusdafax (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the "length of time dormant" thing is more an example of poor expression than a deliberate lie, as in the same UTRS appeal they also say they have gone 6 months without sockpuppetry. But I'm still opposing because, though I see apologies for disruptive actions and for unruly behavior, I don't see anything directly addressing the threats of violence and death. There are also things in earlier UTRS appeals that strengthen my feeling that this is not someone suited to this environment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per other editors with whom I agree that death threats are a never-never. Can they be told to request reconsideration after the end of the world, in 2039 or thereabouts? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockmaster trying to hide their activities by having the user pages of their blocked socks deleted

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo is repeatedly trying to get the talk pages of their old socks deleted, being active on User talk:Sikander Adam as we speak, so could someone please remove TPA? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done along with a couple of others. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. He did the exact same thing with a bunch of other blocked socks a few weeks ago, so it's not the first time he has tried it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@DoRD: And a new one: Krivotie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new account, is trying to do the same on another Najaf ali bhayo-sock today, User:FOTIA EINAI MAI PAREI..., so would someone mind blocking the obvious sock? Also please look at Krivotie's deleted contributions (9 edits are missing from their contributions page), in case he has managed to get one or more other sock pages deleted... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That one has been dealt with by a couple of other admins while I wasn't looking. As for their missing contribs, they were to their own user page prior to being tagged as a sock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Learning by teaching

This article has not crossed my radar until now. I would like some opinions on this. The company seems notable but the main poster is the creator and main subject itself. I have tagged the article with COI and warned the user. The editor, Dr. Jean-Pol Martin, has also written an autobiography (Jean-Pol Martin) and has used two accounts User:Jeanpol and User:Jeanpol~enwiki. The accounts and the articles have been in WP for a long time, therefore I did not nominate for deletion, but came here instead to get some eyes and opinions on the issue, as it is outside of the subjects I normally work on. This seems to me a clear conflict of interest, socking, and advertising. Can some experienced eyes take a look and decide what to do/take it from here? -- Alexf^(talk) 10:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I am the editor. My addition was just in order to complete the bibliography with the newest article published on this topic. It is not an advertising. The same discussion about the COI-conflict was going on at the beginning in Germany and in France. But the Wikipediaadmins in Germany and in France confirm that this topic is notable and that it is legitim that I write about this, because I write neutral and obejctive. By the way: I can't understand why you mean, that I am "socking". I allways edit with my real name! Jeanpol (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the History, you will see that I didn't create the article "Learning by teaching". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Learning_by_teaching&offset=&limit=500&action=history I know Wikipedia very well (the German one) and the rules of this project. The English-article was translated from the German one. And a lot of people worked on it. Please don't destroy knowledge. Perhaps you can read the article I wanted to link with the page: https://jeanpol.wordpress.com/2018/04/17/learning-by-teaching-conzeptualization-as-a-source-of-happiness/ Jeanpol (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Here you can read the discussion about my biography in the Talk-Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jean-Pol_Martin Jeanpol (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps helpfull: https://www.google.de/search?ei=pGmnWsy7CcOB6QTn-oLwBA&q=%22jean-pol+martin%22+%2B+%22Learning+by+teaching%22&oq=%22jean-pol+martin%22+%2B+%22Learning+by+teaching%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l2.3236.28261.0.30014.29.28.1.0.0.0.230.3878.0j15j8.23.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..5.23.3727...35i39k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.QRegg52xqO8 Jeanpol (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• I nominated the "learning" page for deletion and have speedy-tagged the article about the person, and have left JeanPol a message about managing COI on one of their talk pages. Somebody has shown up on the AfD talk page (!), complete with their twitter handle, to try to keep the page; apparently User:Jeanpol has made the tragic error of asking people off-WP to save the page, which will result in the usual backlash from the community. So many problems with social media lately. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog "made the tragic error"? Who is able to discuss on this topic and on the COI here? Are you able to get some scholars willing to help in this situation? Of course a lot of people know "Learning by teaching" and are able to discuss on that subject! I want to do erverything public! Jeanpol (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog I'm absolutly willing to cooperate. But there is no sens to delete pages containing huge science-knowledge just because COI. I don't need Wikipedia to be famouse. But Wikipedia needs scholar in order to generate valuable knowledge. If there is no article in Wikipedia about "Learning by teaching", there are a lot of articles about this topic outside from Wikipedia. It makes no sense to Wikipedia if this encyclopedie deletes his own knowledge, I think.Jeanpol (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Jeanpol, about the "tragic mistake", as I said, when people try to recruit friends to come save a page, the result is usually a stronger and more definitive consensus to delete. This happened for example with the biography of a German scientist, Günter Bechly. There is a good writeup about what happened here. The editing community has "antibodies" that react to this kind of thing. You should also be aware of the WP:MEAT policy. Please read that. I believe you may have violated it.

I an not sure you understand how English Wikipedia actually works. I left you a message on your talk page and we can continue there. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

North Station unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

North Station (talk · contribs) requests a standard offer unblock. While going here is not strictly needed, their request doesn't seem to attract much attention. Quoting them:

Submitted above are some significant edits to the article Ricardo Montez, containing extra information for which I have provided a reliable source that follows the two existing sources; you can compare the material that I have added with the actual article, which remains as it was before I copied the prose which I have edited here. I hope that these edits provide an example of the kind of contributions that I hope to make to Wikipedia, should you choose to unblock me. 20:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts? Max Semenik (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support the account has ~50 edits and the block was for "block evasion", I think the evaded block was related to under-sourced additions as an IP editor, but am not 100% sure of that. As they've avoided socking for 6 months, I see no reason to deny this appeal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE and Power above. --Jayron32 02:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support no reason why they shouldn't be given the offer Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per above and Power - The "block evasion" looks to been related to them using IP before having an account I think ? ... not sure but anyway support per ROPE. –Davey2010^Talk 03:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Per above reasonings. A helpful administrator could perhaps do the do and archive this discussion. Lourdes 07:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to change the definition of a 1RR

See a discussion at the talk page of WP:Edit warring. I tried to persuade the proponent of this change that it might have wide consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Would also affect 3RR, yes? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible bug

Resolved

 – Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Kelly Gordon has been R2ed for several hours but CAT:R2 is empty. Is there a bug somewhere? L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably an issue with the job queue, I fixed it with a null edit and then deleted. ansh666 01:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Note to anyone wondering — it still appears blue because someone's now moved a draft to this title. Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing ring

I just indeffed Thilakshan as a sock of Arnav19. This guy has been hugely prolific, particularly in the world of Indian, Tamil-language TV articles. I don't have time to do a proper SPI on it yet, but will give it a shot if I have time in a few hours. I am very confident about the connection, though. Just looking at the accounts' interaction list will be telling enough, including some niche areas, like very specific awards, but there are other very obvious clues to me: Arnav19 was indeffed for causing lots of damage to the project. He had one template that he'd use to create scores of articles, but that template had lots of flawed content in it, like incorrectly used parameters, tons of MOS violations like leading zeroes in numerals (01 vs 1) and boneheaded crap like in |country= instead of listing India, he'd list Tamil Nadu, a state in India. No matter how much I corrected him, he'd never go back and fix any of the problem articles, and it was like pulling teeth to get him to change at all. Anyway, Thilakshan is also using a flawed template to proliferate sloppy mistakes across scores of articles. If this were a basic SPI case, I wouldn't mention this here, but I'm mentioning it because Thilakshan has over 120 articles created, and they're full of problems. Interestingly, his English is very poor, yet he's able to fabricate article after article? I'm skeptical. I suspect that he's the pass-through for a significant editing ring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Length unit conversion template error

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• In article text, the template call "{{convert|100|in|mm|adj=on }}" currently yields "100-inch (2,500 mm)". The end of the first paragraph of article Inch says that it should yield 2540 mm. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The parameter 'adj' sets the rounding for the input number. Use the parameter 'sigfig' to control rounding of the output number, which defaults to two significant digits. - Donald Albury 19:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

'adj' is adjectival; it inserts hyphens. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

See Template:Convert#Default rounding. Either use |sigfig= or simpler, imo, insert a precision digit e.g. {{convert|100|in|mm|0}} to give the desired output. Nthep (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Issues about convert should be discussed at Template talk:Convert. The FAQ at the top hints at the answer, namely that by default convert generates an output with the same number of significant digits as given in the input. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Active vandal.

this user's edits are pure disruptive vandalism. PaulCHebert (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Normally handled at WP:AIV, but I've blocked as a vandal-only account. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Please watch the pages I have recently edited.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My old friend, or an impersonator, seem to have become active again. Earlier tonight they left me a sweet message on commons (quickly oversighted), alas, messages on he.wp and wikiquote.org the history are still there. I would really like to have semi protect on all my user pages.... sigh. Please keep a look out for the articles I have just recently edited on en.wp (:typically a target) Huldra (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First designs for Special:Block with Granular blocks

The Anti-Harassment Tools team enlisted the assistance of Alex Hollender, a User Experience designer at Wikimedia Foundation to create wireframe designs of the Special:Block with the Granular block feature included. Our first wireframes are based on the discussions on the Granular block talk page, Wishlist proposal, and Phabricator to date.

Because the Special:Block page is already at its limits with its current layout and we would like to propose a new organized layout for Special:Block. This will make it easier to add the granular blocking (page, category, namespace, etc) and whatever is to come in the future. All of the same functionality is available on this new layout, but in a more organized, step-by-step process.

Take a look at the wireframe and leave us your feedback. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, 19:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC) SPoore (WMF) (talk • contribs)

Please check this article

Hi, I suppose that this article is promotive and it's main editor was paid to create it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ryan_(recovery_advocate) There are at least 3 editors that look like the same person. I was trying to place the template to start discussion, but I'm not experienced enough and probably placed the wrong one template, because my edits were reverted. Can you please help me to investigate this? Petr Metr (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There might be some puffery going on here, but that can be fixed by editing the article and/or removing sources of limited relevance. However on the face of it the man does look notable enough for an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Probably I'm not experienced enough on wiki, but please take a closer look on article's editor Jornie09 who was blocked on the 17th of May (account creation blocked) and second main contributor's account was created on the 17th of May to make some minor edits. I was hoping to involve more people to discussion and get at least some attention from administrators to it. Beeblebrox, would appreciate your help, because of my lack of experience I already place wrong templates twice. Thank you. Petr Metr (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Issue with emails sent to the Arbitration Committee

This cross-post is required by the Arbitration Committee's procedures: Due to the large volume of spam messages the Arbitration Committee's email address receives, the Committee occasionally tweaks its spam filter. Unfortunately, a recent update to the spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the Arbitration Committee through Wikipedia (e.g. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. This issue is now fixed, but the discarded emails were unable to be recovered.

If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee through Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Issue with emails sent to the Arbitration Committee

Did you know queue has not been updated

Hello. The DYK update is running almost five minutes late as the next prep has not been moved into the queue. I'm posting this here since attention is urgently required and despite a message I left at WT:DYK and another one at WP:ERRORS, no attention has been done here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this a blockable offence?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Deliberately placing incorrect speedy deletion tags on a small number of pages, in order to see what a percentage of admins will decline them, is in a delicate area ethnically ethically. But is this a breach of community norms? One editor goes as far as to see this as bad enough to be worth a block. What are the opinions of others? – Uanfala (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean "ethically"? Natureium (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:NEWT. This was a horrible idea a decade ago, it’s even worse now. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. After reading the first few sentences, I thought this was satire. I was very surprised to see it actually happened. Natureium (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. Where was a block threatened? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m assuming the reference is to this statement by Premeditated Chaos, which did not threaten a block because the actions were stale, but said if they were ongoing she would have blocked, which seems justified: ongoing bad faith deletion nominations to prove a point are disruptive editing.

Also, the question asked here was whether it was outside of community norms to make bad faith deletion nominations in order to run an experiment on how admins handle deletion. The answer there is yes: it is outside of community norms. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

One of the tests was not G13 yet but it was a clear G11 Draft:King Slim Soul reverting my G11 tag shows poor judgement. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

And for those who haven't been aware of this story, I assume what we are talking about here is this. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts align with Premeditated Chaos and TonyBallioni. This is a textbook example of the kind of behavior that WP:POINT was written to dissuade: intentionally applying a process incorrectly to try to prove a point, such as that the process is inconsistently applied. It is indeed outside of community norms and can lead to a block. Mz7 (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Well, if the admins who've commented here indeed reflect the opinion of the wider community, and conducting small-scale tests of admin behaviour in this way is indeed outside of community norms, then I think we need a precise, community-sanctioned way of conducting such tests. A community ethics committee? I really hope the problem is with the specific way the test was done, rather than with the general principle: if it's a problem of general principles, it would seem to imply that admin actions should be exempt from community oversight, which I don't believe is a proposition that the community would support. – Uanfala (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no need for any such committee, except to you. Admins are already fully accountable—that's implicit in the conditions of their RFA and ADMINACCT—and suspicions that they are not upholding their contract to be, so already have the necessary oversight and mechanisms to address failure.

And from a close re-reading of this thread (which I see you started!) —to clarify—I think you should be aware that this isn't an academic discussion based on an interesting set of proposals from you, but, rather, has evolved into a discussion where you have been told by multiple admins that, yes, you can be blocked for what you did. That should be your takeaway—not ethics committees... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

What policy section or subsection would be cited if I were to be blocked for that? – Uanfala (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPTION for one. MarnetteD|Talk 10:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:POINT, for two. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Generally if you have to ask 'is this a blockable offence' the answer is going to vary and by the time anything definitive is decided its well past the point where a block to prevent disruption is warranted. Warn them "Dont do it again" and move on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, OiD, although in this particular case they were talking about their own actions. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

What is also not appropriate is the User:Uanfala repeatedly stating "alternative facts" about how so many wonderful pages get deleted G13 by admins who blindly and robotically delete everything in sight. (I paraphrase). I find it hilarious that one of the chief targets of such allegations User:RHaworth actually rejected one of his test incorrect taggings. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't commented on either the quality of the deleted drafts, or the reasons for their deletion. I was simply sharing the results of the experiment as well as my thoughts on what it implied for the way we should handle drafts. – Uanfala (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your contribution history disagrees with you. You did this to prove Admins don't pay attention to the quality or timing of deletion. By missing an obvious G11 you proved you are not paying attention to what you are tagging and by reversing my tagging of that G11 you proved you should not be doing CSD Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me make this perfectly clear, so we can stop this discussion: Yes, this is blockable behavior. Unauthorized unscientific experiments with other people’s contributions falls under the umbrella of disruptive editing, per WP:POINT. The rest is just noise. Don’t do this. Period. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for unbanning MafazOfficial

An editor whom I blocked in November 2016 has requested an unblock in emails to me. In order to make the process visible to the community I have posted about it on the editor's talk page, User talk:MafazOfficial. My first thought was to offer to unblock provided that the editor agreed to some conditions, but looking into the matter further I have found that he has an extensive history of having multiple sockpuppet accounts blocked over a long time, and it goes further than what I regard as the limit for an individual administrator taking an unblock decision alone. In the past I would have asked other administrators to express views on the editor's talk page in a case of this kind, but a change in the blocking policy in March of this year requires editors who have repeatedly used sockpuppets to evade indefinite blocks to be treated as community banned (See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans for repeated block evasion. The section of that policy on community bans gives Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as the "preferred" place to discuss such bans, so I am bringing the case here for discussion.

The accounts have been used virtually exclusively to create self-promotional pages, mostly in user space, but at least once as an article. The editor said in email that he was "a young childish kid who was trying to be funny", that he regrets what he did, and that he wishes to move on.

I am a great believer in giving another chance to young editors who have been blocked but who now say they wish to change. We all change very rapidly when we are young, and I have many times seen former vandals turn into constructive editors in this kind of situation. However, in this case the extent of the sockpuppetry may lead some editors to have doubts. Here is a list of the accounts, as full as I can provide.

The earliest account that the editor mentions has never edited. Since it has not edited, and since it dates back to well before any of the other accounts were created, there was no "abuse" of the account, and I think we should ignore it, but I am mentioning it for completeness. The account is "Maazzz", which was created on 5 February 2009. It was renamed to Maazzz~enwiki on 21 April 2015‎.

The other accounts that I know of are:

Mafaz729, created 3 August 2012 and blocked 9 September 2015

Mafaz729 Mohamed mafaz, created on 8 October 2013. This is another account which has never edited. The editor has not mentioned that account, but comparison with user names of other accounts he has used make it inconceivable that this is not another of his. (I don't think we should read anything into the editor's failure to mention the account. An editor who has used a number of accounts may well fail to recall one among many, especially in the case of an account created over four and a half years ago and never used.)

Mafaz Official, created 27 November 2014 (not blocked)

MafazOfficial, created 30 September 2016 and blocked 14 November 2016

MafazOfficials, created 15 November 2016 and blocked 8 December 2016

MohamedMafaz, created 14 December 2016 and blocked 14 December 2016

MohamedmafazOfficial, created 14 December 2016 and blocked 14 December 2016

EngineeringMafaz, created 15 December 2016 and blocked 16 December 2016

Actor Mafaz, created 15 December 2016 and blocked 16 December 2016

Mafaz Galle, created 4 January 2017 and blocked 4 January 2017

Artist Mafaz, created 28 August 2017 and blocked 28 August 2017

As I have said above, I am a believer in giving second chances in cases of this kind. With editors who have a history of sockpuppetry but who say they will change it is common practice to invite them to take the standard offer, which allows them to be considered for an unblock if they wait at least six months without sockpuppetry. The last known sockpuppet account used by this editor was blocked nine months and one day ago, so the standard offer requirement has been more than satisfied. The editor has already stated that he will not write about himself if unblocked, and that he will stick to using just one account. I am in favour of offering to unblock on the understanding that any breach of those two undertakings will lead to the block and ban being restored immediately, without further warning, but I shall be very grateful to anyone who is willing to express a view, for or against. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems fair to me, we can swiftly reimpose the ban if he starts self-promotion again. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, if but only if the user explicitly agrees not to write about themselves. Looking at User talk:MafazOfficial, the response to this question appears to be "i am mafaz. from sri lanka. i am a Editor On Facebook. born 24.04.1995" which is not at all answering the question and not at all committing to avoid writing about themselves. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: You are right. I remembered that the editor had said "Agree to use only this one account", and thought that I also remembered that he had said he would not write about himself, but I clearly misremembered. I shall post again to his talk page, insisting that he give a better response to that point, and I fully agree that we should not unblock unless he does so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Very weak support and only because of the being a child bit. Otherwise this would be a case where we should show someone the door and not let them back in. I am sympathetic to kids being kids, however, and I don’t think we should hold actions of a minor against them years later if they’re trying to actually get into Wikipedia. That being said, I wouldn’t lose an ounce of sleep if they stayed banned. Also, in addition to Yamla’s conditions I suggest requiring a rename. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I agree. I had been so busy considering all the other aspects of the case that I didn't think about the user name, but I am totally against any user name with "official" in it. We could unblock one of the accounts without that in its name, or we could require a change of user name: it comes to much the same thing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Either works for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• One more small detail for the record. There is a sockpuppet case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mafaz729/Archive, but it adds nothing to what I have said above. It mentions only four of the twelve accounts that I know of. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support but weakly. Giving the number of sock accounts they operated and virtually nonexistent meaningful article edits it wouldn't change much if they remain blocked; as it seems very likely they will be reblocked on CIR ground in the near future. But I nonetheless, believe in giving people a second chance to rectify mistakes. I hope they're reformed. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This editor has been abusing socks continuously for years. The last account was blocked at the end of August of last year. The excuse of 'being a kid' would have been mitigating if the abuse had occurred years ago and stopped years ago. I do not find it likely that this editor all of a sudden went from a 'kid having fun' to maturity in nine months. I would look favorably on an un-ban request if they refrain from socking for another six to nine months and if they can show they have made a couple months of consistent, non-problematic contributions to one or more of our sister projects. Jbh ^Talk 18:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Can he explain, in his own words, what the goals of this project are, why his previous edits are contrary to it and how he will contribute to the encyclopedia if unbanned? MER-C 19:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per "Competence is required". No indication he's got any idea of what it even means to make useful, non-self-promoting edits; obvious lack of English language skills, evident breakdown of communication on being asked to no longer write about himself; no realistic prospect of useful contributions. BTW, he's not a child as some have assumed above; according to what he just wrote on his talkpage he's in his early twenties. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly. Unblocking someone who replies to "promise no more self-promotion" with "I am Mafaz from Sri Lanka" would serve no useful purpose. The editor's English significantly improving should be set as their #1 unblock condition. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - With great trepidation, I have to !vote the opposite of TonyBallioni. Kids can be kids, but they should only edit Wikipedia if they're able to act like adults. Kids acting like kids don't belong here -- we're not a playground. The editor can return at some time in the future when they're more mature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I certainly understand that view, and as I said, it really is only a very weak support. I tend to be more lenient on second chances when the original offense was when someone was a child, a ROPE approach if you will, but normally I’d be with you. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm all for second and even third chances especially when it comes to having bad starts here .... but as noted by Jbh the editor was only blocked in August last year ..... the sock accounts don't really help their case either, Anyway in short what with the sock accounts and self promo articles I personally think unblocking would be a bad decision, They're moire than welcome to retry in 5 years time when hopefully they would've grown up. –Davey2010^Talk 02:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Two more usernames, very similar to the ones listed above: Mohamedmafaz (talk · contribs) was created 14 November 2006 and and Mohamed mafaz(Actor) (talk · contribs) on 13 November 2014. Neither has edited or been blocked, as far as I can tell. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Mohamed mafaz(Actor) did make one edit on 13 November 2014, the same day that the account was created. That edit was the creation of a self-promotional user page, which remained in existence, apparently unnoticed, until it was deleted in December 2016. From the contents of the page it is clear that was indeed the same person as the accounts listed above. Mohamedmafaz has never edited, and since "Mohamed" and "afaz" are common names we cannot assume that that account was the same person. The account dates from several years before any of the other accounts, increasing the likelihood that it was a different person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Unblock appeal from Hawkeye75

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hawkeye75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has submitted an unblock request which I am copying from his userpage to be discussed by the community. Note this is NOT Hawkeye7, and to avoid potential confusion, a condition of his unblock would be that he be renamed to Computer40. The appeal is below, and I am bringing it to the community for consideration:

Hi there. I would like to make a plead to be unblocked from Wikipedia. I originally got banned for having a battleground mentality and harassing other users. I felt like I put a lot of effort into editing different articles and I got mad when someone either reverted or removed my edits. It was very frustrating seeing the work disappear. I failed to look at both sides of why my edits were removed. If I do get unblocked and me edits are reverted, I will either let it be or start a civil discussion on the article talk page. Another reason why I originally got blocked was my anger towards IP users. I was angry that the same person could have different IP accounts and it was hard to tell who was who. I read over some of the Wikipedia articles and learned more about dynamic IP's and other stuff. After getting blocked, I selfishly made a sockpuppet. I did this because I really wanted to edit Wikipedia. That is the truth. It was very frustrating to see mistakes in the encyclopedia and not be able to fix them. It was a very poor decision. I then did a lot of thinking and decided to take the standard offer. During the 6 months that I was blocked, I did not sockpuppet and thought about my actions. I learnt that with the power of editing comes responsibility as well. I will not continue my old habits and I hope to make positive edits in the future. I hope I get the chance to contribute to Wikipedia again. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this user has been blocked twice at ANI, in 2016 and in 2017. Their sockpuppet account JudgeJake40 (talk · contribs) was blocked on November 28 2017, 6 months and a week ago. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, hell to the no. It sounds like he plans on going right back to his original editing choices. His request needs to address what he is going to edit, and I'd strongly suggest minimally a TBAN from amusement parks, reality TV and hockey for at least three months be imposed as a condition, just to see if he is capable of writing from sources. Further, a 1rr restriction and zero tolerance for NPA. Not hopeful. John from Idegon (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think the most important thing here is for him to be renamed first. I think there's mechanism that prevents creating account that closely resembles existing account; and this surely shouldn't have slipped through. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  If he is unblocked, I will rename, and picking an acceptable rename was a condition of my copying this appeal. I didn’t rename first because renaming an indef’d account is controversial and it also makes it more difficult for the community to review the appeal because the new name makes the person more difficult to identify for some. I’m neutral on the outcome here, but did want to clarify the renaming point. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  Agree, no point in renaming account that's still blocked. But I was just nonplussed by the manifest similarity, hence my comment. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  Back to the main issue, I Support unblock, figured out the user has made otherwise good contribution before he digressed. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support If I can be blunt, their actions were often—sub-par?—a year ago, and the socking was dumbass; but the SO exists for a reason—and as does ROPE. We're not allergic to readmission, as it were, and we've readmitted "worse" (horrible to make comparisons, but purely for the sake of illustration)—or even greater levels of dumbassery, if you will, so I don't see why Computer40* should be treated particularly differently. Their understanding of where things went wrong may be, IMHO, incomprehensive and incomplete, but still demonstrates the quality of self-reflection that is at the heart of such appeals. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

* Hawkey75 newly-chosen handle. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"even greater levels of dumbassery" - I think I have a new title for my autobiography. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

But on a serious note, Support, per SN54129 and WP:ROPE. Anyone who spots any issues with this user, or suspects any socks, know where to come. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per above and WP:ROPE. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Well exactly like the last ANI I've just come here to see why "Hawkeye7" was blocked!, Anyway that aside I'd support unblocking on the basis that

A) They don't get angry so easily (easier said than done I know!),

and B) They don't harass any user in any way, shape or form,

If one or the other are violated they should be indeffed without any ANI discussion, I obviously support renaming and that should be done before they're unblocked, The sockpuppetry was extremely silly but anyway it sounds like 75 has grown up and realised they need to change their ways,

Hawkeye75 - Just to reiterate if you're reblocked because of old habits the community will not be so forgiving and I would take this time to seriously change the way you edit and act here - You've now been given a lifeline to this place so I would strongly recommend you use it wisely. –Davey2010^Talk 15:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Unblock per WP:ROPE. SQL^{Query me!} 15:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• support This is indeed exactly what ROPE is for. Am I utterly convinced by this unblock appeal? No, but there’s no way to really be certain unless we go ahad and unblock. Reblocking are cheap. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE, but no need to rename any more than the hundreds of other names that are "Hawkeye" followed by numbers - about three quarters of the numbers up to 100 are taken, some of them twice. Peter James (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose correct me if I have misread the history but it looks like this user has been indefed and allowed back twice already. I would say they have used up their ROPE already. They have waited the minimum time recommended in the standard offer between the last time they were caught for socking and making this request. Nor do the mention making any contributions to another Wikimedia project to demonstrate they are able to work and play well with others - they should spend six months doing that while not socking here and ask again. Jbh ^Talk 23:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per SerialNumber. Swarm ♠ 00:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocking a sleeper?

Is there any legitimate policy under which I can (indef) block an obvious sleeper? User:Tranceline113 made one short series of edits 14 months ago, then went dark until a few days ago when he created a cryptospam article. If that's not a deliberate sleeper account, I'll eat my mop. But what to do about it? Is WP:NOTHERE justified? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I read the article you just deleted. Indef'd for violating WP:NOTSPAM in addition to the concerns you raised. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• If you're going to block for advertising, then the account having previously made useful edits in the past should be a mitigating factor, not an aggravating one. (Opinions may vary on just how useful those edits were, but I note they aren't deleted, nor currently proposed to be.) When the previous edits are deliberately trivial just to get autoconfirmed status, it's another story. —Cryptic 02:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Cryptic: no one creates this as their first edit on the project. It's commissioned spam as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • His first edits were on ruwiki, and this is apparently a translation of the article there. (They were much more proactive about getting rid of it than we were.) I'm not objecting to the block, in any case, just the initial motivation for it. —Cryptic 03:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Ah, misread your reply then Anyway, yeah, both pages are/were marketing promo speak and I've also PRODed the original article. Also, fwiw, I actually disagree on your point: old compromised accounts are very much a thing used by paid editors, and it can raise red flags worth getting a CU to look at, but in this case I'm pretty sure it was the same person. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Yea, the untranslated templates like Книга give that copy-paste away. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Philip Cross

• Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a lot of noise about Philip Cross (PC) on the internet, with implausible claims of COI and such, and it is pretty clear that he's engaged in a Twitter spat with some of the subjects of articles he's edited. That may well not be a problem at all - I have sparred with Dana Ullman online, that dispute originated with his POV-pushing here, it's not an off-wiki dispute imported to Wikipedia, it's a Wikipedia dispute that attracted off-wiki activism from people dissatisfied with our reflection of an entirely mainstream view, and the same seems to me on the face of it to be true with PC.

The characterisation of PC's targets as "anti-war" is framed to invoke sympathy from a typically small-l liberal project, but is problematic. George Galloway is not "anti-war", he's an activist for Palestine and supports Russia's involvement in Syria - he may be anti some wars but the claim of "anti-war" is at best questionable. He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way. It's also worth noting that the three main sources for criticism of PC are George Galloway, Sputnik (where Galloway is a presenter), and the Russian state media conglomerate RT (which is the parent network of Sputnik).

Given the off-wiki profile of this, and the to me obvious involvement of non-public information in assessing whether any of the claims made by Galloway (e.g. that PC is an account shared by a network of paid individuals) are actually true, should we refer this to ArbCom to ensure transparency and allow PC to definitively clear his name? Or is it a nothingburger? I'm rather leaning to the latter but I honestly don't know. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support referral to ArbCom to ensure transparency and allow Philip Cross to definitively clear his name. The proposer has related some context, but from a point of view that clearly indicates, as he concedes, that he considers this "a nothingburger." I believe it's a something burger, and offer the following additional background.

With 1,797 edits, User:Philip Cross ranks #1 among editors to George Galloway. His first edit to that page was on September 15, 2005. Six and a half years later, on March 31, 2012, Philip Cross began trolling George Galloway on Twitter. Finally, on May 1, 2018, George Galloway struck back, calling Philip Cross "a gutless coward."

There ensued a lopsided exchange, with Galloway tweeting to or about Cross nine times, and Cross tweeting to or about Galloway 75 times. (Sorry, but the following link triggered a page protection filter, so I could not embed it properly. To actuate raw URL, please remove space between " https://" and "bit"–> https:// bit.ly/2rS4cWB

On May 12, 2018, Galloway offered a reward of £1k for the positive identification of "the sinister Mr. Philip Cross", whom he six days later called "an unhinged stalker".

On May 14, 2018, Cross tweeted to Galloway, "George, I'm talking to you punk." He also acknowledged Galloway as one of "the goons" with whom he is feuding, and 41 minutes later admitted, "Well I have a big COI now, so I probably won't edit their articles very much in future." Nevertheless, four days later, Cross again edited Wikipedia's BLP of George Galloway.

Also on May 14, the conflict spilled over into wider media. RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and two days later Sputnik followed with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". I cite these not as WP:RS, but to illustrate that the Cross-Galloway fracas has spread from Twitter and is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia.

In my opinion, Philip Cross has violated WP:BLPCOI, which mandates that "…an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." This applies not only to George Galloway, but to the other subjects of Wikipedia BLPs whom Cross has called "goons"—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens—all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited.

But far worse, Philip Cross has disgraced Wikipedia in the public eye. KalHolmann (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support referral to ArbCom, Good resume. Philip Cross (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree that the conspiracy theories themselves are a 'nothingburger' that probably do not need an ArbCom case to "clear his name" (though if he really feels the need to clear his name, it should be allowed). That said, that doesn't mean there's no problems that need to be addressed. When your editing behavior causes controversy in the media, there's most likely some problem. In this instance, I think this for sure satisfies "significant controversy or dispute" with an article subject, an obviously-important stipulation of BLP that the user in question has acknowledged when confronted about it on Twitter, but has ignored in practice, as is evidenced above. This type of violation should uncontroversially result in a AE TBAN from the article at the minimum (especially if the user in question is the article's largest influencer, this obviously damages the credibility of our supposed NPOV), but if the user has additional COIs that they're editing articles in spite of, additional discretionary sanctions might be necessary. Is there some reason admins haven't addressed this yet? Seems like something that should have at least been reported by now. Support referral to AE to address the BLP considerations. Swarm ♠ 17:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, I first raised this issue on 18 May 2018. The discussion was closed before it could begin by User:NeilN, who advised "Go to WP:ANI, not here." On 20 May 2018 User:Drmies hatted —effectively disappeared— the section from Talk:George Galloway.

Next on 18 May, I filed a report at COI Noticeboard. It was closed within literally two minutes, with the explanation: "Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around." (User:JzG determined this in the span of 120 seconds. Amazing!)

Later that day, I filed a report at ANI. It was closed five minutes later by the same Admin, with the explanation: "WP:FORUMSHOP." Forum shopping is defined at the relevant page as "raising the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages," and is forbidden because it "does not help develop consensus." Duh! How can editors arrive at consensus if my every attempt to stimulate a discussion is instantly quashed? KalHolmann (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Would an RFC be a good first step? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• We need to look at actual edits, not at off-wiki garbage. If editors can be run off controversial topics by media mentions then various special interest groups will have a field day. On Wikipedia, we have a sock farm targeting Cross, KalHolmann who inappropriately canvassed before I told him to stop, and attacks by usually-dormant accounts [24] and IPs [25]. What I haven't seen yet is a veteran, experienced editor expressing serious concerns about Cross's edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN, I found three veteran, experienced editors expressing serious concerns about Philip Cross's edits. In December 2015, User:John (207,744 edits since 2006-01-08) wrote, "Tentatively endorse a topic ban on the basis of the talk page comment, and more especially on the apparent inability to see that comments like this will be seen as problematic." He later added, "Count me as a 'support' topic ban." That same month, User:Guerillero (18,031 edits since 2009-11-07) wrote, "I support a topic ban after this revert. Philip Cross seems to be focused on coatracking as much negative information about Sr Mariam as possible into the article." In February 2016, User:AusLondonder (24,968 edits since 2015-04-17) wrote, "I have noticed myself an inappropriate pattern of editing by Philip Cross relating to left-wing British organisations and individuals. That needs to stop." KalHolmann (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN takes a cheap shot, coming here to accuse me of canvassing. As I explained to him on 18 May 2018, I posted a notice to each of six BLPs directly related to my newly opened section at Talk:George Galloway. I did so to comply with COI Noticeboard instructions, which state: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue." (Emphasis added.) I sought to follow, in good faith, the procedure as I understood it preparatory to filing a COI Noticeboard report. Now, NeilN tries to shift the focus of this latest discussion from the behavior of Philip Cross, where it properly belongs, onto me, a "sock farm," and "usually-dormant accounts." I encourage other editors to examine the underlying issues, not the various personalities involved. KalHolmann (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: Canvassing [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] to get a mob of involved editors calling for a topic ban. And you haven't presented any examples of problematic Wikipedia edits, only asserted that "Philip Cross has disgraced Wikipedia in the public eye." How is that examining "the underlying issues, not the various personalities involved"? Pretty sure various editors have "disgraced" Wikipedia according to public special interest groups. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN, thanks for providing diffs of my notifications to each of the six BLPs directly related to my newly opened section at Talk:George Galloway. I tried to follow the rules as I understood them, and made no attempt "to get a mob of involved editors calling for a topic ban." As for your other point, I do not regard the proposal on which we are commenting to be about "problematic Wikipedia edits." Rather, it's about the spectacle of a conflicted editor waging war on Twitter against the "punks" and "goons" whose BLPs he has frequently edited and with whom he has admitted, "Well I have a big COI now." This is not about edits. It's about the integrity of Wikipedia as perceived by the public at large. KalHolmann (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It might be nice then to see some examples of this public at large, rather then the like of gorgeous George.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Wikipedia page protection filters prevent me from providing a direct hyperlink to Twitter search results, which show exhaustively the ongoing public debate on this issue. However, as a workaround, please navigate in your browser to any Twitter page, and paste the following into the Search box at upper right: (Wikipedianhidin OR philipcross63 OR "Philip Cross" OR "Phillip Cross"). When results display, click "Latest" for full list. KalHolmann (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, here's a recent hacker news (news.ycombinator.com) discussion on the topic. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC) I'm a bit dismayed that people are not getting a good impression of WP :-/

For the third time (and more bluntly), subjects of articles are not the "public at large". Parties interested in influencing our coverage about them or their causes are not the "public at large". If you can't produces examples of problematic editing then this is a nothingburger as JzG says. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• ArbCom does not exist to review conspiracy theories on off-wiki websites. If anyone has actual evidence, they can file a case. If they do not, then we move on. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann, you clearly violated the guideline against canvassing because your notifications were not neutral. I recommend that you apologize for that infraction. You are also wrong when you write "This is not about edits." It is always about the edits here, first and foremost. So, if he is the most active editor working on the Galloway BLP, but all of his edits accurately summarize what reliable sources say, then there is nothing at all wrong with that. Almost every developed article has a most active editor, unless two or three happened to be tied in the edit count at a moment in time. So, your task is to show, with diffs, that the editor is misrepresenting sources or violating BLP policy or core content policies. The self-admitted Twitter squabbling is a problem, in my mind. Personally, I consider that behavior to be very unwise and unseemly, and I am very interested in what other uninvolved editors have to say about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, thank you for this opportunity. I do indeed apologize for notifications that were not neutral. KalHolmann (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Nothingburger. If anyone has policy-violating bad diffs please present them, but the diffs seen here don't seem to support a conflict of interest claim. I'm really not seeing evidence that this user is a "stalker-troll." But, if anyone has diffs of that, pony up. Andrevan@ 18:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment this looks to be a well-organized attack campaign run by "the Russians". WP:RBI probably applies to their on-wiki activities. Separately, while Philip Cross probably could use a short vacation from a "quality-of-life" perspective, I haven't seen a single diff that justifies any action against him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at the off-wiki site linked by Andrevan, the content at Piers Robinson actually is problematic; Cross's preferred version borders on an attack page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • If you think Piers Robinson's was bad, go and look at Tim Hayward (academic) immediately after Philip Cross had finished with it. Ludemate —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Blocked as a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Unclear to me from this that there is a COI or POV pushing. This person certainly seems politically controversial. It seems the article has been cleaned per BLP, and I don't see Philip Cross revert warring to insert his content. Perhaps he could comment. Andrevan@ 19:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

I request that User:Andrevan explain his removal of content from this section. KalHolmann (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Going to the IP's talk page would have told you it's a sock puppet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, content was added by a block evading anon who is now blocked, and consisted of copypasta from 2015 and 2016 of dubious provenance, structured to look like users supporting a topic ban in this thread. Misleading at best. Andrevan@ 19:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN, well, wasn't that convenient? Four minutes after the IP posted his comment, you just happened to block him. I gotta hand it to you, Wikipedia admins sure know how to run (or is it ruin?) a discussion. KalHolmann (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Kal, if you'd like, I can reblock the IP instead. Dumping comments here from a discussion years ago, and conveniently fitting them smoothly into this discussion, is not a good-faith contribution to the discussion — it's an attempt to skew the discussion a specific direction by making it look like these comments were made in this discussion, not a separate one. No comment on whether it's a sockpuppet or not, but the person behind this IP is significantly disrupting things, and as this IP's following project conventions (e.g. {{od}}) in an internal project discussion, we give a good deal less leeway than with an IP tweaking a few things improperly in an article. Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Not sure why a reblock is needed. I've blocked them before as a sock of Hillbillyholiday. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Kal was complaining that you're using the tools inappropriately, blocking someone on the other side of this discussion in which you've involved yourself. My point is that if he really thinks it's wrong, I'll happily reblock, and he'd better be satisfied because I've not offered any opinions (and haven't formed any) on the merits of the complaint. In other words, I'm the "any reasonable administrator" of WP:INVOLVED. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The quotations included in the reverted edit included timestamps that clearly placed them in 2016. I don't see any attempt to pretend they were more recent. Rather they demonstrated that people had been having trouble with Philip Cross's editing as far back as 2 years ago. NeilN really did write[32] "What I haven't seen yet is a veteran, experienced editor expressing serious concerns about Cross's edits." and the reverted post purported to show examples of exactly that (I don't know how experienced those editors were though). KalHolmann provided more examples, going back even farther,[33] and I do recognize at least one of the editors in KalHolmann's post as a sensible editor of very long standing. NeilN reverted KalHolmann's post[34] calling it "proxying". But it instead comes across as an attempt on NeilN's part to cover up evidence in a dispute.

  As an outside observer, if someone like User:John makes a comment on a dispute, I'd consider his viewpoint to probably be credible and so I want to hear what he has to say. I don't care if John's comment is shown to me by a banned user: I want to see it anyway, and now that I've seen it, I think it is relevant. The rule about banned user edits (at least as I used to understand it) was that they MAY be reverted, not that they MUST be reverted, and in this case I think they should have been left to stand. In any case I see no evidence of KalHolmann proxying (acting under a banned user's direction) although the diffs might have originated with a banned user.

  I would *really* like if those reversions were to stop. Wikipedia doesn't have an exclusionary rule and in any case we engage in some minor terminological abuse when we refer to diffs as evidence. The evidence is actually in the publicly accessible revision history of the wiki, and diffs are just revision numbers (formatted a particular way to tell the wiki software what content to retrieve) indicating where in the history the evidence can be found. It would make Wikipedia dispute resolution look pretty stupid if any user could destroy a case by getting themselves banned, then posting all the diffs favoring one side of the case, so that they would have to be reverted and nobody else could use the evidence that they point to.

  I don't know the exact source of KalHolmann's diffs or what his thoughts were in presenting them, but if they originated with another editor (banned or otherwise) and KalHolmann wants to post them again explicitly taking responsibility himself for their contents, I'd be very opposed to anyone reverting them again. I haven't examined the AN page history for more such reversions but maybe it's worth it for somebody to do so, if we are to get a complete account of what's been going on. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• If you're asking me to stop reverting the posts of block-evaders and those who proxy-edit for them, that's not going to happen (note that Andrevan removed the initial post). Article space is one thing - editors can take responsibility for edits they think improves the article - but blocked editors don't get to participate in discussions, either directly or by proxy. The diff is still in history if the post content needs to be referred to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You need to substantiate your accusation that KalHolmann was proxying, or else withdraw it. He looked in a spot that the other person pointed to, and reported what he found there. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Struckout because it's up to KalHolmann (not me) to pursue the accusation if he wishes. But WP:PROXYING is clear, it says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor..." where direction is italicized for emphasis. That happens when (e.g.) a blocked editor posts on their talk page asking for someone else to make a certain edit, or it can happen off-wiki. If you have evidence that KalHolmann did that, I'd like to see it. If you don't have such evidence then it's a baseless aspersion. You wrote "the diff is still in history if the post content needs to be referred to" and it seems to me that KalHolmann did exactly that. As for your reversions, keep in mind that you are abetting what some people including news outlets are calling a nasty and protracted BLP attack (whether it actually is one is still under discussion). So the BLP attack (if that's what it is) becomes partly your responsibility if your efforts result in prolonging it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP

So, ignoring all of the other crap above, we do still have the most prolific editor of a BLP directly feuding with the subject of said BLP, and continuing to edit the article, in contravention of clear BLP guidance on this specific situation. That concern, to me, comes across as a legitimate one, even if everything else about the situation is complete BS. Are we going to address this or just look the other way on this one? Swarm ♠ 19:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The feud seems to be that the subjects of the articles don't like what has been written about them on-wiki, right? Is there an indication of non-neutral editing that we can pick apart? Andrevan@ 19:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

power~enwiki presented this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

To expand: the The Guardian, Robinson has said, should employ Beeley and another blogger, Eva Bartlett (who reputedly wears an “I ♥ Bashar” bracelet). In so doing, it would become more "ethical, independent and glamorous" by doing so. sentence was mentioned in the off-wiki site (amidst other, perfectly good edits). I'm not sure if www.opendemocracy.net is a reliable source, but that entire sentence reads a lot into a tweet, and I feel it's deliberately intended to mock the subject. When Tibloc suggested its removal, Cross implied that Tibloc was a Russian agent. The current version of the article (after removals by Drmies) reads fine to me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Power, what about that website would give you any reason to think that it might be reliable? See their about page; they're activists, and their significant figures formerly included Anthony Barnett (writer) and Tony Curzon Price — just average journalists, with no evidence of scholarly review or expertise in anything except news reporting and (in the case of former editor Price) an unspecified area of economics. Unless I've missed something significant, if anyone used a source like this in a literature review, his committee would quickly begin raising questions about his competency. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how to respond here. Newspapers with "average journalists" can be reliable sources, especially for fact-based claims. That said, I'm not claiming it's reliable, I'm just noting that Philip Cross used it as a reference. I have concerns, but haven't investigated it enough to claim it's not reliable. [35] is the specific article, which looks to be a contributed piece. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No, they're almost never reliable secondary sources. You can often trust them with simple facts about recent events (e.g. "During yesterday's Question Time, MP George Galloway questioned the government's policy on X"), but there they're primary sources because their writing comes at the time of the event; they're not summarizing and distilling at-the-time-of-the-event sources from a chronological distance. We mustn't use them significantly, because we risk placing undue weight on something that doesn't get covered by reliable secondary sources — WP:BALL, we can't know whether yesterday's Question Time will get mentioned in the secondary sources, since they can't exist yet? And when they're writing about past events, yes they're secondary, but journalists' credentials are typically restricted to covering the news, not providing solid retrospective coverage of something. You have to limit it to simple stuff (e.g. "Twenty years ago, MP George Galloway questioned the government's policy on X") unless it's written by someone with credentials in that field, or unless it's reviewed by someone with credentials in that field, e.g. a retrospective on economics reviewed by the editor with the economics Ph.D. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Care to tell some of the editors on Trump-Russia related topics that? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

[ec] NeilN, you linked to a revision, not a diff. Here is the edit resulting in that revision (a bot could do that), and while I've checked several edits before that, all I'm seeing is adding links, changing "he" to "Robinson", adding relative pronouns, moving content from one paragraph to another, etc. — nothing potentially problematic. What could possibly be wrong? Did you provide the wrong link by mistake? Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I deliberately linked to the revision. This would be the diff, almost all (if not all) the content changes in the 53 edits are by Philip Cross. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay; thank you for the clarification. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, no, the feud is not solely that the article's subject does not like what is being written about him in good faith. The editor is directly attacking the subject off-wiki. It's a direct interpersonal dispute, and diffs are not needed when the existence of the COI has been self-acknowledged by the editor. BLP policy specifically addresses this situation, and as of now, it is not being followed. The policy does not tell us to "examine the diffs" and determine whether there is actually non-neutral editing going on. It explicitly preempts the potential of problematic editing, by prohibiting editing during a direct dispute with a BLP subject. If someone's advocating that Cross should be allowed to ignore the specific BLP guidance on the situation, I find it hard to believe that his participation on the article is that essential. Swarm ♠ 20:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I agree with your estimation of the situation, but if Philip Cross has self-acknowledged the COI and has indicated he will no longer be editing there as he now has a COI, do we need to enforce that through a sanction or a referral to ArbCom? Maybe we do - but it seems like there is a well-organized sockpuppet opposition pushing for such an action, which makes me suspicious. My cursory analysis of Philip Cross is that he is largely a well-intentioned editor who may have let his political POV creep into a few of his edits, but I don't see a sustained practice of POV pushing. Has he been continuously editing after he said he wouldn't? Andrevan@ 20:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: No, the policy actually says, "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." It does not prohibit editing (your emphasis) with good reason as there have been times in the past where editors have been targeted off-wiki and have defended themselves. Not saying that's what's happening here but saying policy mandates prohibition is reaching too far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I'm not saying we need to enforce it with a sanction (though a discretionary sanctions TBAN would be the most obvious way of enforcing it). The ideal scenario would be for Philip Cross to simply acknowledge the policy guidance on this issue and agree to abide by it. @NeilN: point conceded, it's not a hard prohibition, and it theoretically allows for the possibility of continued editing with good reason. But it is straightforward guidance from a policy that we generally take pretty seriously. So, that's fundamentally what I'm getting at. Is there a good reason for Cross to be ignoring the clear policy guidance on this situation? If not, he should understand why it's not ideal and agree to stop, at least until his issues with the subject die down. Swarm ♠ 20:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Sorry, I didn't answer your question. Yes, he actually has edited the article since he acknowledged his COI, as evidenced by KH in his first comment. That's why I'm bringing this up. It's not a sustained problem, just something that I think should be addressed. Swarm ♠ 20:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I agree that Cross should voluntarily stop editing the affected articles. I suggest he use edit-request templates if he has content changes to propose. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That's all I'm looking for from him as well. Swarm ♠ 20:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN, please specify the "affected articles" to which you allude. I would list George Galloway, Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens. But there may be others. KalHolmann (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so folks will need to watchlist those and make sure they are not disrupted. Just in case someone was waiting until Philip was out of the way so they could insert their POV. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: This is not a formal restriction. Cross needs to use his common sense and stay away from editing the articles he believes he has a COI with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The primary concern is the George Calloway article, because he's directly in a dispute with George Calloway, and the policy guidance on that situation is clear. That's a valid concern. We're not going to start imposing blanket restrictions strictly because of opinions expressed on Twitter. Swarm ♠ 21:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• User:Swarm I agree with your OP completely. I want to emphasize that we don't know (and cannot know) if the real person operating the Philip Cross Wikipedia account and the real person operating the Twitter account is the same person. If it is, in my view this would be very problematic with regard to BLPCOI, if the twitter account is actually interacting with the article subject on twitter. (Giving opinions is one thing; actual interpersonal conflict is another). I looked and have not seen if Philip Cross has disclosed here on WP if that is their tweeting or an imposter. (I know about twitter imposters -- i had one).

I think that editing on any of these Russia-related-populist subjects is very hard and I am glad we have people like Philip Cross doing it. But if it is the same person on twitter and here, and if the twitter interactions are actually interpersonal, then we are not in a good place. I think this should be referred to Arbcom so the issues of whether it is the same person, can be clarified. What remedies Arbcom would choose, I don't know. As I understand it this is not the same issue that KalHolmann has been raising. This is quite narrowly focused on carrying out a real world dispute here on WP, too. It may be that Philip Cross' edits are perfect, but if the same person is operating that twitter account, the optics are reproachable. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• ArbCom. If the person operating the Twitter account and the one operating the Wikipedia account are the same person, then we need - at the very least - topic bans for Philip Cross on cerain BLPs here. I don't think this is even arguable. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Jytdog & Black Kite, as shown on his Wikipedia user page, Philip Cross advised: "You can contact me via email, see the toolbox on the left, or @philipcross63 on twitter." As preserved in a Wayback Machine snapshot of one of his Wikipedia-related tweets dated 7 May 2018, his Twitter profile bio then read, "My main published outlet is via my Wikipedia account as Philip Cross." On May 16, 2018, he changed his Twitter handle to @Wikipedianhidin and removed Wikipedia from his bio, but otherwise his account remains, in all essential aspects, identical. KalHolmann (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Do not ping me. Do not write on my talk page. If you reply to this, I will not reply. I want nothing to do with you. You were advised below to drop this, and you absolutely should. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment if Philip Cross wants an ARBCOM case, it's reasonable, but I think that enacting a topic-ban here is both reasonable and sufficient. I'm not sure of the scope, but I agree with Black Kite that PC editing George Galloway is too problematic to allow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• I got pinged here as a courtesy, but while I'm here I might as well say that I see no reason to allow Philip Cross to engage with this subject any further. I think it's NeilN above who is very curt on the topic ("unacceptable COI" or something like that), and I agree. And at the same time, of course, we should extend them all the protection we can: editors who jump on Cross one way or another should be dealt with. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree Philip Cross should not edit George Galloway anymore. I noticed the COIN case and at that time since I didn't look in the details, assumed Guy's summation was reasonable. But having read in more depth here, I agree there's a clear problem. Even if GG is the one who initiated the 'feud', it seems clear PC responded in kind. Once you're as involved in a dispute with someone as PC appears to be here, it at a minimum causes major perception problems if you're continuing to edit their article. And more than that, there's a reason why we strongly discourage direct COI editing. It's very difficult to be neutral when you have strong feelings and having a major dispute with someone is likely to generate those feelings. When it's a BLP involved whatever 'fault' the subject may in starting the dispute we can't allow them to be punished for it. I can understand why PC may have wanted to push back if they felt the way they were being treated was unfair. And I do have concerns that subjects can pick a fight with editors who are potentially editing perfectly fine and try and goad them into a response to stop their editing. But we have to deal with these situations when they arise. And I see some signs it may have been PC who initiated the offsite dispute anyway. (Haven't looked at the timeline in detail since ultimately it's irrelevant.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that Philip Cross has knowingly violated WP:BLPCOI on several occasions, jeopardising Wikipedia's reputation. That said, I'd prefer for him to voluntarily recuse himself, perhaps accompanied by a formal pledge here, from editing articles on UK political activitists and similar with whom he knows he has a profound disagreement, to put it this way. A tban would perhaps go too far as first punishment as I am not aware of any previous formal proceedings against this editor. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that Philip Cross can write on these BLP subjects from the disinterested/dispassionate angle that is required of BLP editors. So I agree that Philip Cross should stay away from these articles, especially the George Galloway one as the two are engaged in an escalating public spat. I'd like it to be a voluntary recusal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• I find it wholly unacceptable that someone having a real life disagreement with a subject should edit about the subject. While I'd prefer Philip Cross step away on his own, the community might need to step between him and the article.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Philip Cross needs to stop editing George Galloway immediately, along with any other articles about people whom he is hurling abuse at. You can't be publically labelling someone a 'punk' and a 'goon' and expect people to see you as capable of editing disinterestedly with your Wikipedia hat on. If he can't do it informally then a formal topic ban needs to be imposed. Fish+Karate 12:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• The above (about BLPCOI regarding Galloway) makes good sense. I'm not formally endorsing a topic ban because I've had only a superficial look at the happenings, but ZOMG, how is this even possible. Beyond that I think it warrants checking into whether there's a wider problem. I'm offline tomorrow but might look some more in a few days. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regardless of the merits of anything else here, I think KalHolmann should be topic banned from any further mention of user:Philip Cross, other than in the context of any potential ArbCom case. He is not helping. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed link to KalHolmann. Nyttend (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support unless there's a voluntary recusal from matters related to Cross going forward. He's derailing the process with his zeal here. Swarm ♠ 21:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. When I pointed out a specific error that KalHolman made, the editor apologized. Although much of this incident may be based on baloney or worse, I am convinced that Philip Cross has shown extremely poor judgment by taunting BLP subjects as a self-identified Wikipedia editor on Twitter for years, while actively editing their biographies. I simply cannot see that as acceptable behavior, and I am surprised to see editors I respect make light of it. Though there have been some fumbles, I for one thank KalHolman for bringing this to our attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Wait Issue brought to our attention - good. Unable to realize that people/organizations with vested interests are not "the public eye" - not so good (otherwise, according to The Daily Mail, we're all completely useless, biased, etc.). I'd like to see how KalHolmann interacts with Cross in the future after this matter is settled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I have been co-editing (and arguing) with KalHolmann for a month or more at Joy Ann Reid. My strong opinion is that he/she cares about our Wikipedia project and puts effort into making this great encyclopedia better. You might disagree with his/her opinions (snd I often do) but their seriousness and good intentions should not (IMO) be doubted. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• support and strongly. I find their constant pounding with the likes of RT and Sputnik so formalistic as to be approaching the Theater of the Absurd. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I fully agree with what Cullen328 wrote above: taunting BLP subjects as a self-identified Wikipedia editor on Twitter...is simply totally unacceptable behaviour, IMO. Huldra (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose though I note that their further participation in this thread is unlikely to benefit to anyone. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. If asking the one editor to stay away from an article (or a set of articles) is not a big deal, it's also not a big deal for the other--per Jytdog, really. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Drmies, if any restriction be applied to Philip Cross, Kal Holmann also seems to naturally fall under said editing restriction. However, if both are to be warned to voluntarily not involve themselves with COIs and/or sensitive, politically charged topics and to use their best judgment, that also seems fair at this juncture, absent more current diffs of problematic editing. Philip Cross obviously knew he shouldn't have been Tweeting at article subjects and editing them, so I doubt he would have any problem with toning that down, considering he's a very prolific editor on many other pages that need work. Andrevan@ 02:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - an editor should not be restricted merely because it is perceived that they are "not helping" (explicit evidence is needed) and a topic ban is not merely "asking [an] editor" to do something but mandating they do so or face punishment. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - this is getting ridiculous, although I agree with Andrevan (and others) regarding the need for both editors stepping as far away from any potential COI editing as possible, this is an editor facing severe harassment off-site. The least we can do is deal with their behaviour on-site following the rules of Wikipedia as opposed to "George Galloway said Phil was mean to him on Twitter therefor". If there are things to be answered for then let's deal with them and not get distracted/side-tracked by RT and a twitter-spat. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. If KH continues to have problems with PC then it's worth reconsidering. But even if their approach wasn't the best KH had a very relevant point namely that there were significant problems with PC editing GG given their apparent feud (whoever initiated it). It's unfortunate it took us this long to deal with it. I do agree now that this has our attention KH needs to step away. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose on policy grounds but issue a formal warning to KH. We don't normally impose such sanctions for GF actions, whereas breaches of CIV or STALKING should normally require at least one warning before any bans. Additionally, I fear a penalty may also be seen as punishing an editor for bringing up valid issues with other editors' editing (even if we agree the manner WH did this was inappropriate). Should a warning not work, a ban would be an option. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: I do not see any proof submitted that this editor has been repeatedly disruptive WP:CBAN. And vis-a-vis his comment about Kal I agree with Cullen WP:AGF.– Lionel^(talk) 05:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: The proposal is bizarre - I see no evidence of disruption, merely the odd mistake any of us might make. I agree with Cullen above. --NSH001 (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: per others above. The allegations made by said user and elsewhere in the media are highly serious, and threaten the integrity of the encyclopaedia. If it is found that they are untrue then fine, but the user shouldn't be chastised for making other editors taking them seriously. User:Jdcooper (posting from IP address cos I'm at work) 46.227.13.24 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Cullen328 and other opposers. Cross is the problem here. Jusdafax (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per the above opposers, which is all I can really say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Off-wiki mentions

I saw this issue come up (having never heard of it before) on Hacker News here and later here. The first of those has a long comment thread and links to a "Five Filters" article "Time to ditch Wikipedia?"[36] that looks like a transplanted Wikipedia dispute (full of diffs etc.). I didn't look at it closely. The second links to a post by Craig Murray called "The Philip Cross Affair"[37] which has a time-of-day analysis of Philip Cross's posts and argues that Cross either spends ridiculous amounts of time editing or else is more than one person. Leftwing author Caitlin Johstone also has an article[38] and audio podcast[39] "Wikipedia is an establishment psyop" about the matter. I can't make much sense of the article and haven't listened to the audio, but they are there for those interested.

I'm not endorsing any of the writings cited above, but am posting the links here in case they are useful for further analysis. This sounds messy and even ignoring the political bias allegations, the level of editing activity attributed to Philip Cross is IMHO already a bad sign (people who edit nonstop tend to do more harm than good). The Wikimedia UK response was also unconvincing to say the least. So I agree with people above saying that it might take an arbcom case to figure out what is going on. I haven't looked into it enough (and probably won't) to say whether it's already time to file one. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for links. I saw Murray's article earlier and I am baffled with his use of aggregate statistics which unfortunately feels rather of the type, statistically, a man with his dog have three legs each. The chart might equally well show PC editing only one day a week on different days each year over seven years. PC's average 27 edits daily of an average of 52 characters each (62% being below 20 characters!) equals to some 30-60 minutes spent on WP a day. I see no statistical grounds for Murray's suggestions that this is an institutional account which edits round the clock 365 days a year. So, I propose we stick with considering PC as a single person (unless CheckUser tells us otherwise). (This of course has no relevance to PC's violations discussed above). — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The idea that Philip Cross edits 'nonstop' may be based on a misinterpretation of the timecard section in the user's editcount summary. The circles are of even, maximum size because the user's edits are pretty randomly distributed 9-5 Monday to Friday. The fact that the circles effectively fill the daytime weekday space doesn't indicate constant editing. George Galloway piggybacked the theory that the account is run out of GCHQ or the like on this 'nonstop editing' notion. William Avery (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Kasmiri and William Avery, thanks, that's a good point about the timestamps and I now realize the claim shouldn't be taken at face value, though ISTM that it's still worth checking out. There have definitely been cases in the past of people making apparently ridiculous numbers of edits with no breaks (in those cases it was imho bloody obvious that the people in question were actually running bots) but in this case it sounds like the numbers aren't that extreme. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the stats end up being something like 30 edits/day for the past several years, which for reasonably motivated Wikipedians is not hard to achieve at all. nneonneo ^talk 16:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing every day with zero breaks for N years was pretty impressive. Does the guy have no life? Never travels, doesn't get sick of Wikipedia, no time crunches at work, spouse never wants him to go kayaking, etc? But yeah 30 edits in a single day is not much, depending on your style. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing

• More recently, this showed up , which also mentions JzG: https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html  ; Note responses on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162057

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

An outsider's perspective

Alright, I am hardly a prolific WP user, having been inactive for 5+ years. However, I wholeheartedly, as a complete outsider to this case, support a topic ban for user:Philip Cross. There can be no mistake here; Cross IS exhibiting a COI and has admitted so publicly. Whether he/she did on-wiki or NOT, or regardless of the machinations of interest groups, there can be no denying the credibility of the articles has been compromised. If we ignore this, we might set a bad precedent for WP Cocoliras (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Philip Cross continues to edit George Galloway BLP

Despite acknowledging on the article's talk page that we have an "active discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Philip Cross" User:Philip Cross continues to edit George Galloway, explaining, "Old habits linger and so on." This strikes me as a middle-finger salute to the Administrators' Noticeboard process. KalHolmann (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a problem. He *should* stop editing, but he also carefully explained why they were uncontroversial edits, and they are. Please stop making a fuss out of this. nneonneo ^talk 16:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Cross and any editor supporting his continuing contributions to his involved BLP articles needs restricting.Cross needs banning from all wp:blp articles Govindaharihari (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Due to the overhwelming support for the suggestion that User:Philip Cross should not edit on the subject of George Galloway due to his real-life spat with him (and inevitable COI), and due to User:Philip Cross's apparent contempt for the opinions of the community, I propose that User:Philip Cross be topic banned from the subject of George Galloway, broadly construed. I'll just note that the latest edits do appear to be uncontroversial, but an editor with a clear COI regarding a subject should not be the one to decide if something is controversial. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm not sure "broadly construed" is needed at the moment, so I've struck that - but if others think it's needed, obviously feel free to add it to your comments. I'll also add that had this simply been George Galloway attacking Philip Cross in public, I would not be calling for a topic ban. But the attacks and insults have been going the other way too, and Philip Cross has got himself too deeply entrenched in a fight with George Galloway for it to be in any way appropriate for him to edit the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • And just a comment for whoever assesses the consensus and closes this, Wikipedia has a clear policy which says "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest", at WP:BLPCOI. I assume the closer will take this into account, and will apply due weighting to oppose !votes which are not policy-based. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Caving to off-site pressure sets a bad precedent. If someone doesn't like their WP coverage, all they'd need to do is amp up a "spat" with editors of the article to disqualify them. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  And all an editor in such a situation needs to do is not respond in kind and continue to maintain a neutral approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Nearly two thousand edits and he’s still at it after repeated taunting? Enough is enough. I say a full block if this keeps up. Jusdafax (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose SBHB puts it well. The amount of unsubstantiated guff that has been posted about Philip (on wikiP and off) is a clue to why this would be a bad precedent. MarnetteD|Talk 15:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support but topic ban should not be limited to George Galloway, whom User:Philip Cross has publicly addressed as "punk." The ban should also include the other subjects of Wikipedia articles whom Cross has likewise called "goons"—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens. KalHolmann (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. Earlier above, I suggested to be lenient. But as Philip Cross is now showing his middle finger to all who are discussing him here, instead of offering an apology and recusal, I see it as a lost WP:SECONDCHANCE. It doesn't matter whether his COI edits are controversial; suffice that the community has requested him to stop editing. I will support a tban covering UK left-wing politicians and journalists broadly construed, i.e., to include political commentators, activitists, councillors, and similar. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Curious what the "middle finger" is - is he continuing to comment publicly about this? nneonneo ^talk 16:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You are free to subsitute "middle finger" with "contempt". — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I still haven't looked at the edits enough to independently support a sanction, and I note that there are some good editors opposing. But I couldn't imagine this pattern of editing being allowed in a US politics article, under the AMPOL-based discretionary sanctions affecting all of those articles. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - PC is the subject of an off-wiki harassment campaign. His opponents do not have a wiki presence, so there's no one from "the other side" to censure, yet they are POV pushers of the highest degree. Repeated edits by anonymous users, sockpuppets, etc. to these articles push the same POV as PC's accusers (see the page history for Oliver Kamm - dozens of IPs, then autoconfirm protection, then edits from a half dozen users with 10 nonsense edits, then 30-500 protection, then an edit from a user who made 200+ extremely minor edits in a day after a long period of inactivity, all pushing the same text). The vast majority of PC's edits have been to clean up this crap and push proper RS material into the related articles. If you TBAN PC, please carefully consider who is going to step up to assure the quality of the articles - because I can guarantee you that the "other side" will gleefully start pushing their POV once "the malign presence of Philip Cross is no more" [40]. nneonneo ^talk 16:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is literally not in response to anything except PC's own behavior, which has crossed into violating BLP policy. It's that simple. You're ignoring that, completely, while implying that off-wiki harassment is pressuring us into silencing him. That's such a ridiculous allegation. I sympathize with PC getting caught up in off-wiki drama, but that has nothing to do with the fact that he shouldn't be editing a BLP while in an active dispute with the subject of said BLP. That's just policy. Swarm ♠ 08:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Philip Cross should not be editing any biographies of people he is insulting in public as a self-identified Wikipedia editor. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable behavior should re-examine their position. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, it is clear that the user is incapable of editing that page objectively. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because the edits are uncontroversial, WP:IAR, and the fact that COIBLP is not a hard and fast policy but more of a strongly worded suggestion. If he makes controversial edits, and there are diffs, I will change my opinion. Andrevan@

User:Andrevan, are you saying don't ban because PC's most recent edits to GG are uncontroversial, even if earlier ones were controversial? Or do you mean all of his edits to the GG article have uncontroversial? Did you look at the Five Filters page?[41] It does have some ugly diffs, and looks to have been written by someone who knows their way around Wikipedia DR. If that person is here, can they speak up? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Long overdue. We should consider a ban from a few other BLPs, too, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Off-wiki harassment shouldn't be endorsed. If George Galloway doesn't like it, I invite him to go piss up a rope. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest you read once again what the question is all about. FYI, this section is not about off-wiki harassment but about PC flouting the community's advice yesterday. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I HAVE read it, genius. Why do you assume I haven't? Again, I reiterate my invitation to Mr. Galloway. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Calton, you're not looking good here. Did you really write that off-wiki harassment shouldn't be endorsed, while endorsing Cross's off-wiki harassment of Galloway? BLPCOI is very clear, you shouldn't battle someone off-wiki and then attack their WP biography. Are you really saying it is ok as long as you do it in the reverse order? That makes no sense to me. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have a suggestion for you, Mr. Anonymous IP: don't put words in my mouth. It's dishonest. Unsurprising, but dishonest. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not anonymous so maybe you'll answer the question from me. Does your statement "Off-wiki harassment shouldn't be endorsed" apply to all, or just selectively to those you disagree with? Little Professor (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my extensive reasoning already-given above. This is a clear cut violation of BLP policy guidance. We need to enforce BLP policy, not fabricate reasons to ignore it, or pretend it's just a "suggestion". Framing PC as a victim who's being punished is also completely ridiculous. PC engaged the article's subject in an off-wiki dispute directly. Whether Calloway's actually in the wrong is irrelevant. The editor has a COI, and per BLP policy should not be editing the article, and this needs to be enforced. Swarm ♠ 05:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Also ridiculous is contorting the meaning of COI into pretzel shapes to get a result, hey, you be you. --Calton | Talk 05:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wait, did you seriously just say that? There's no COI? Seriously? The editor admitted to there being a COI, Calton, that's why I'm saying there's a COI. If you had actually read the thread you're participating in, you'd know that, and perhaps you wouldn't be misrepresenting the situation as "harassment" that we're giving into either. It's literally like you have no idea what's going on here, you're just shooting in the dark. Swarm ♠ 06:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why yes I did seriously fucking say that. Do you need new reading glasses?
• And why yes, I actually did read the actual fucking thread: other than my failure to toe the line, what gives you reason to think otherwise? --Calton | Talk 03:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per concerns that this opens up other editors to increased off-wiki harassment. Lepricavark (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's an incredibly vague statement that doesn't even make sense. This proposal has nothing to do with harassment. Where are you getting that? Did you actually read the thread? Swarm ♠ 08:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I see no point in explaining my position to someone who has already decided that I'm wrong. Lepricavark (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per above, Phillip Cross didn't have to fling attacks the other way, and we have WP:BLP for a reason Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support There would need to be an astonishingly good reason for someone engaged in an off-wiki feud to edit topics related to their opponent. I see no attempt by Philip Cross to supply that reason. It doesn't matter if a topic ban appears as caving to off-site pressure and the only precedent set would be to confirm the obvious fact that those engaged in public brawls have a strong COI that disqualifies them from editing in related areas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Swarm. Some of the oppose votes do not seem to be addressing the actual issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support w/caveat It does not matter who is right and who is wrong. PC compromised himself as a neutral editor the moment he engaged the subject off-wiki. If he were merely being attacked off-wiki without responding I do not think I would support a TBAN, nor do I believe there would be a consensus for one. Because of this I do not think the arguements which claim this would encourage bad actors to harass editors off-wiki to force them off a subject due to 'conflict with subject' hold much water.
  I support s TBAN only on those BLP who PC has engaged/commented on off-wiki. If one can not restrain one's passions suficienty to avoid calling someone a 'punk' on a public platform then it is not reasonable to expect an ability to hold oneself 'above the fray' and maintain NPOV on that subject. There has, however, been no evidence I am aware of that PC has been making inappropriate edits so I see no need to restrict his editing on subjects other than those he is in direct off-wiki conflict with. Jbh ^Talk 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• JBH, when you say "no evidence I am aware of", do you mean you examined the available evidence enough to say there's probably nothing convincing there, or do you mean you didn't look? Not a rhetorical question, just seeking clarification. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• 173.228.123.166 (talk) More the later. I browsed quickly through the thread did not notice anyone systematically bringing up concerns to spark a discussion saying he was making BLP violating edits and considered that this proposal was made because of the off-wiki conflict rather than for BLP violation. If there is evidence he is making bad edits on the other articles I am willing to strike that portion. Jbh ^Talk 18:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. The Five Filters page (wikipedia.fivefilters.org) does have some diffs from other articles, though of course whether they're convincing is subjective. There's also been some posted on article talk pages. I feel like we all have "dispute fatigue" here since none of us want to go digging for them. Of course I don't blame anyone for that. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I've seen a reasonable number of diffs by now that indicate Cross has been editing Galloway's biography and other articles tendentiously enough to possibly justify a topic ban in its own right. The obvious next step is to tediously examine a bunch more diffs to get a clearer reading. That happens all the time in other WP disputes but doesn't seem to be happening here, and I find that a little bit perplexing. It leaves a significant unresolved question. On the other hand I don't have the energy to do much of digging myself, so I can't get after other people to do it. Question: does anyone here think Cross would be allowed to edit a biography of an American politician the same way that he's editing Galloway's biography? That is, I'm asking whether the AMPOL discretionary sanctions and the general enforcement regime around US politics would make the case get handled differently in practice. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• True, if somebody had a public spat with, say, Hillary Clinton, especially one that would have lasted for many years, I imagine that that person should not be allowed by the Community to edit the related Wikipedia article. Not sure why this such COI is not always perceived this way in the UK. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see any need to examine edits in detail, as WP:BLPCOI policy is nothing to do with the quality of edits - it requires that an editor who is engaged in a public spat with a BLP subject not edit their biography at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Kashmiri, US politics is treated differently (it's under DS from two(?) arb cases) because of its history of long-term agenda pushers messing up its articles and editing environment. It's like sending more police into perennial high crime areas, pouncing on infractions (not good but sometimes necessary). The UK politics editors are apparently more civilized civilised than we here in the States, so the project can maintain a more normal level of AGF towards them and handle DR through customary processes. Philip Cross is accused of being a long term agenda pusher like we sometimes get in the US. So I'm asking how he would look under the AMPOL lens.

  Boing, BLPCOI says if you're fighting someone off-wiki you shouldn't then start also attacking their Wikipedia biography. That leaves open an argument that it's ok if you do it the other way around (attack them on-wiki first and off-wiki later). I find that ridiculous but it seems to be what some of the TBAN opposing rationales amount to. And PC's editing is being painted off-wiki, with some plausibility, as a deeper problem than a personal spat between PC and GG. That's what only a pile of diffs can answer. BLPCOI is an easier way out but it leaves unanswered questions and keeps the door open for crappy editing in other articles. It leaves us still looking like we don't keep our house in order. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't read "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person" as implying any chronological condition. It really wouldn't make sense that way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's a stupid reading too, but you know what this place is like. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• OK, support and keep investigating I'm convinced by Boing that PC should stop editing the GG article per BLPCOI (enough acronyms here?). BLPCOI should and does leave a little bit of wiggle room for scrupulously neutral editing, but that's not what we've been seeing taken as a whole (maybe the last few days of edits have been neutral). I'm not worried about the GG biography falling under the depredations of international communism without PC to defend it. Somehow I think enough other editors can keep an eye on a prominent article like that. There is also the unresolved question of possible wider agenda pushing affecting other articles, so discussion should stay open about that. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How deep could COI run here?

For the record, I popped onto a publicly shared document[42] that matches Philip Cross's Wikipedia edits to tweets from Oliver Kamm's Twitter account. The document suggests that PC's edits to WP articles on various public figures were closely timed with Oliver Kamm's public spats with them. By the way, this coincidence was puzzling to an editor as far as 11 years ago.[43] I am as distant as possible from drawing any conclusions on anyone's RL identity (as there might be many explanations for this coincidence). However, if we had a situation that OK and PC were indeed somehow linked (through meatpuppetry, etc.), we would be looking at an entirely different level of COI.

I am not sure how much we should concern ourselves with such deep-going investigations of possible COI in Wikipedia editing, so thank you to share your thoughts. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Although that document is interesting, deep off-wiki investigations are usually frowned upon. If there's an arb case it becomes possible to submit evidence to arbcom privately when stuff like real identities are involved. PC and OK have definitely communicated in the past.[44] If you have some thoughts or info that you can't post openly, you can send it to arbcom at any time (WP:ARB#Contacting_the_Committee). 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I suggested punting it over there. I file this as "above our pay grade". Guy (Help!) 08:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agree, I had same doubts. I won't pursue this up as my primary objective is to stop/prevent bias/COI in WP editing, for which a tban will be sufficient. I am not here to research people's indentities, especially that I have already received a formal warning from an overzealous admin for outing out a PR agency who did paid editing; so I need to stay on the safe side. But I will support the idea of investigating the matter further should anyone be willing to do it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

In my defence, pointing to the "(Philip) Cross-Referencing" document, I should note that Diane Abbott, Ken Loach, Seumas Milne, Max Mosley, Alex Salmond, Nick Timothy and Mark Wadsworth were very much in the news when Oliver Kamm's tweets either preceded or followed my edits to Wikipedia. My diffs should be compared directly with Oliver Kamm's tweets and it may be noticeable that the viewpoints expressed are not necessarily in agreement. An exception does apply to my edits to certain articles, such as Edward S. Herman, where I generally share mainstream opinion expressed by opinion formers like Mr Kamm. Philip Cross (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Fwiw I'm not terribly concerned about the presence or absence of connections between Philip Cross and Oliver Kamm, so I see the stuff in that document as of at most peripheral interest in a possible arb case and here. It's an almost-irrelevant detail. Something like that came up in the World War II case but it just didn't matter and it might as well have been completely ignored.

  If Philip Cross is multiple people as Craig Murray suggests (or even a GCHQ spy operation per some of Murray's followers), that would be much more alarming, but I can't take that theory seriously without stronger evidence than Murray gave (and if the GCHQ part is true, then I want Philip's help in getting James Bond's autograph). It's more a question of whether systematically biased editing (WP:TE) is going on, distorting our coverage of important topic areas (less ideologically obnoxiously than in the Noleander case, but far worse than that case in the aspect of how BLP's are affected). If that is happening, then Murray and others were right to call us out on it, even if the way they did so was not very nice.

  Philip, I know you spend a lot of time editing, so on the theory that Wikipedia is important to you for reasons beyond how it presents current UK politics: are there other subjects you are interested in--art, history, architecture, or whatever--and could you be a happy editor working in those subjects instead? That might be a reasonable compromise, saving us from losing a good writer while getting rid of a bunch of conflict in the currently disputed areas. An arbitration case (if one occurs) might converge on something like that either way.

  If anyone cares, https://www.google.com/search?q=craig+murray+philip+cross currently has 825,000 hits. :O 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

173.228.123.166, I care, and you've badly misused Google search. Change it to q="craig murray" + "philip cross" Voilà about 9,510 results. KalHolmann (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a less scary number. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

173.228.123.166, also, if you go to the last page of Google's 9,510 hits, you'll find that there were only 128 "relevant results," meaning 9,382 were likely duplicates. So this search is a useless gauge of interest in the topic. KalHolmann (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, the duplicates may still mean something, unless they're literally multiple hits on the same page. If they are separate pages with the same stuff on them, they can have separate viewerships so they still affect the audience size. The 27 Reddit threads in different topic areas also basically duplicate each other, but they are seen by separate groups of people. Do you want to try similar checks for the Five Filters page? I'm about to step out but can run a search like that in a little while, if you're not up for it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

173.228.123.166, I'll leave further research along these lines to you. I honestly don't think this is a productive approach, since it is superficial and unscientific. KalHolmann (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Note that you don't need to link my contrib page, and if you're trying to ping me it won't work. One of the blessings of IP editing is that you don't receive pings. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom

Filed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § George Galloway. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural question: does the fact that Arbitrators have declined to hear this matter render the present AN moot? Specifically, does the eventual closing reviewer here retain the option of topic-banning Philip Cross? KalHolmann (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  The Arbitration Committee has not declined to hear the matter (only one Arb has, but it needs a majority). Any decision by the committee does not stop the community continuing to seek a consensus for the current proposal. The closer here has only one option, that of evaluating the consensus, and has no power to do anything else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for explaining that. I misunderstood the process, and will await votes by additional arbitrators. KalHolmann (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was thinking that a community topic ban would be sufficient, but the way discussion has been moving towards suggestions of things that should not be aired in public, I agree it's a good idea to at least run this past ArbCom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

My statement for the case request is currently on hold here (permalink) if anyone wants to see it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

173.228.123.166, since you have apparently been cleared as a suspected sockpuppet, I presume it's safe to respond to your statement. At first I wrote off you as a fool because you misspelled my name 17 different ways before finally getting it right. But here you make an important point that merits discussion. "Wikipedia doing nothing about this," you write, "gives the impression we're not keeping our house in order. Jimbo and WMUK reinforced that impression by brushing off concerns (Streisand effect). So now there's a lot of internet outrage directed at us, maybe driven by an anti-Philip Cross propaganda operation in its own right, but people are finding it convincing." You then cite 27 Reddit threads and three Hacker News threads, rightly observing that "Wikipedia is taking a beating in all of them." Of course, 30 threads are not representative of public opinion. It would take a rigorous statistical study to demonstrate the extent to which Philip Cross has harmed Wikipedia's credibility and reputation. My intuitive sense, having closely followed the outrage on Twitter, is that Cross has hurt us immensely. If I'm right (and I pray I'm not), it will take years to repair the damage. And the longer Wikipedia dawdles, the worse it gets. You are absolutely right in concluding, "What people outside want most is for us to take the concerns seriously, check them out carefully and openly, and come to some reasonable conclusion. They mostly don't give a rip about left-wing UK politics … but they don't like the idea of Wikipedia ignoring long-running content manipulation from any corner." KalHolmann (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to reply to me in the presence of an open SPI report: you didn't have to wait for it to close. I'm sorry about the misspellings and I think I've fixed them all now. It looks like George Galloway is after us[45] and I don't especially blame him. Overall though, we can handle this, and even if our reputation slips a notch, that might be a good thing. Too many people treat us as infallible and we don't pretend to be that and we don't come anywhere close to it. It's better if they view us with their eyes open. If we're as good as the major traditional encyclopedias (which are not infallible either) and we're perceived that way, I'm satisfied. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Why the rush to judgment? This request for arbitration was filed at 09:37, 26 May 2018. Seven hours, 17 minutes later, User:BU Rob13 declined the request based on the statement by Philip Cross posted just 49 minutes previously. Eight hours, 48 minutes after the request was filed, User:Doug Weller likewise declined. I am unfamiliar with WP:ARC, and may be asking a newcomer's stupid question. But is it customary for arbitrators to decline a complex case without waiting for additional statements and further evidence? KalHolmann (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann, the arbs have in all likelihood looked at this AN section. They know what is available. There's been solid evidence shown of Philip Cross's COI with regard to the Galloway article, but a much weaker case so far for improper editing in other articles (yes there's a nasty diff or two, but showing a few dozen more of them would be much more persuasive). AN just issued a topic ban on the GG article so that element is removed from the basis for the filing.

And the AN discussion is still open. Arbitration is supposed to be the last step of Wikipedia DR, which means it's not supposed to start until other avenues have stopped making progress with the dispute still unresolved. This case may be a little bit more arbitration-appropriate than others because of the privacy issues, but as described elsewhere I actually think the private stuff is fairly unimportant, and it's sufficient to ignore it and decide the case on purely the basis of public stuff. So that aspect of arbitration isn't really needed.

Being in an arb case is a huge hassle, almost like having a second real-life job for the weeks or months while it's going on. So it's something to avoid if you can, rather than relish the idea. You might look at the evidence sections of some past complex arb cases to see what is expected and imagine how much work it is. The stuff here on AN and on the off-wiki pages like Five Filters are maybe 1/10th of the way there. Philip Cross has around 130,000 edits: how many thousand of them are you ready to examine?

Finally, if a request is declined and then the situation changes, it's always possible to file a new request. So that there have been some decline votes is not worrying. It's somewhat reasonable to stand down now and see how the GG topic ban plays out, re-opening discussion if problems continue. I posted some advice on PC's talk page about editing more carefully going forward. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that User:BU Rob13 has struck his decline. "When I wrote it," he explains, "this had been presented as a relatively simple issue on a narrow topic of Galloway." That's plainly what the filing admin intended, misnaming the request "George Galloway" when it ought to have been titled "Philip Cross," prejudicially framing the controversy, and misleading arbitrators into treating a complex case as something routine—a nothingburger to use his word. I'm relieved the arbitrators are catching on. KalHolmann (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, it has been recent practice to avoid naming an ARBCOM case after editor names, as this has been found to be predisposition the case against that editor from contributing editors. --Masem (t) 03:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem, has the converse also been found—i.e., naming an ARBCOM case after an aggrieved BLP subject predisposes the case against him? Particularly when, as in this case, the proposing Admin has prejudicially denigrated that BLP subject by saying, "He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way" and calling him "a divisive and marginal figure with more enemies than friends." KalHolmann (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann, it sounds like you want for there to be an arb case. OK, fine. What do you expect to happen during it? What do you think the outcome will be? The only valid purpose of such a case afaict is to thoroughly examine PC's edit history and present detailed analysis that might or might not support a sanction. That won't happen automatically just because a case opens. It's a hell of a lot of work, looking at 1000s of diffs one by one, identifying the interesting ones and writing up why they are interesting. You have to be fair and credit the good as well as criticizing the bad. And you need to look at a big enough sample to establish that there's a pattern of persistently bad editing rather than editors' usual levels of mistakes or poor judgment here and there.

Usually before there's an arb case, there's enough feeling of urgency among interested observers that at least a few people have spent a solid evening or two looking at diffs instead of debating or spouting opinions like we're doing here. And we would have seen at least preliminary results of such analysis already. At present nobody seems eager for a case because nobody is interested in doing that work. Since you're the one who seems to want a case, are you volunteering? You should read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration if you haven't. See particularly the "evidence" paragraph of the "open cases" section. Please don't take this on if you're after a particular outcome. The allegations against Cross are, at the moment, plausible but unproven. It's far better for the project if you can start the analysis with an open mind and a presumption of innocence, than with a prosecutorial mentality where you try to reach a conclusion that you've already decided on. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Added: I don't know if it's the same in the UK, but "nothingburger" is a term used by US politicians to deflect attention from scandals they are in, after the scandal gets too big to ignore but before the indictments come down. So I wouldn't freak out when people use it. It has the opposite effect from the intended one. There's a similar thing when the US President says they have "full confidence" in some official who has come under public criticism. "Full confidence" in that context means the official will be fired within a few days. You can set your watch by it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann and Boing! said Zebedee: I always prefer that the community handle what it can, and I see that there is now a community topic ban. Because of that I'm sticking to my decline until I see a need for the Committee to do something that the community can't do. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I introduced the term nothingburger at the head of this thread. I am not American. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Which editor is at risk of being outed? On 28 May 2018, arbitrator Euryalus removed a list from the George Galloway request for arbitration because "some of the links are to pages which encourage outing of an editor." I request clarification as to which editor is in such danger as the result of our discussion. Surely it cannot be Philip Cross, whose user page from at least August 2011 listed his full name and year of birth as Andrew Philip Cross (born 1963), and by December 2017 insisted, "Any claim my user name is an alias, or a meatpuppet account, is entirely false." He added his Twitter user name, @philipcross63, in June 2012. His Twitter profile in turn listed his location as UK. Wikipedia has already published personal information about Philip Cross, and kept it online for years. In order to avoid outing the other, unidentified editor to whom Euryalus alludes, it would help to know his or her Wikipedia user name. KalHolmann (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The explanation for the removal is here. Please also read WP:OUTING. The list remains available in the page history for review by Committee members if relevant to consideration of the case request. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you refuse to identify the editor supposedly at risk of being outed. Got it. KalHolmann (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It is normal practice to remove or redact offline speculation as to the real-world identities of anonymous or pseudonymous Wikipedians. There are excellent reasons for this. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're alluding to off-Wiki speculation that Philip Cross is Oliver Kamm, Mr. Cross has already denied that, here on Wikipedia. Cross has also denied that his Wikipedia user name is a pseudonym. KalHolmann (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: I think the above posts are unhelpful. We don't out people here, and I think you can see why more specific guidance, like "we don't out people but let's be especially careful not to out user so-and-so" (that seems to be about what you are requesting) would be counterproductive. As for Philip Cross's post about not using an alias, we WP:AGF but as scientists we have to leave open the hypothetical possibility that he's being untruthful with us. In that case, as before, we don't out people here. If someone has evidence of something like that going on, they should send it to arbcom. Arbcom could then use the info to decide how to handle the situation, but it wouldn't publish the info.

If "Philip" is actually an elected politician or government spy operation, maybe that's a big enough breach of public trust to be a matter for outside of Wikipedia, in which case again don't post it here. But it "Philip" is really Jane Bloggs, hairstylist from Whatevershire, then they're just someone derping around on a web site. In such a case we'd handle it internally, possibly going as far as to boot the person from the site, but we don't go after them in real life. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

173.228.123.166, a new development lends weight to your argument. On 17 June 2018, BBC News Online reported, "Philip Cross is not the name he normally goes by outside of Wikipedia." I had assumed that if Philip Cross is his real name, as he has insisted on his user page, then it would match the name he normally goes by off-Wiki. BBC does not disclose the latter name, but it raises at least two possibilities. First, perhaps Andrew Philip Cross, the full name posted on his user page, goes by Andrew in real life. (On Twitter today, Cross himself suggests this is the case.) Obviously that trivial difference does not involve "outing." However, another possibility is that Cross goes by a whole other name off-Wiki. In which case, revealing that alias would indeed constitute outing. So I have reconsidered my opinion that Philip Cross is in no danger of being outed, and now support ArbCom's secrecy on this particular point—although I remain opposed to the committee's overall lack of transparency in hoarding the evidence. KalHolmann (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Somethingburger. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles KalHolmann (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Earlier complaint

I was the IP address that complained about Philip Cross's behavior here on 24 November 2017, initially in respect to the article on Luke Harding.

I ask that this earlier complaint, which went nowhere, be joined to any ongoing Wikipedia investigations into what is now generally known as The Philip Cross Affair.

I think the complaint speaks for itself but I would like to add some pertinent comments.

1. Sufficient evidence as to the facts and scope of the issue was present in the complaint. The matter could have been addressed then, but nothing was done.

2. It's not just about George Galloway and never was. This bogusly narrow framing, exemplified by the token ban on Mr Cross editing George Galloway's page only, will not succeed in sweeping the scandal under the carpet. It's a mistake even for its promoters.

3. There's a broader policy issue that Wikipedia treats "opinion formers" (to use Mr Cross's apt term) like Mr Kamm who work for what Wikipedia is pleased to call "reliable sources", i.e. up-market western corporate media, as therefore reliable in themselves. But mere opinion is no more reliable for being expressed in oligarchic media. Wikipedia's policy allows a biassed opinionator/editor like the Kamm/Cross nexus (whether a single person or a close couple) to effectively be its own "reliable" source for furthering its (employer's) point of view.

4. Your procedure here displays what will inevitably be seen as bias, and remember that the administrators' discussion is public and has already attracted public interest.

I will single out the editor Guy only as an example. Twice he has expressed bias in favour of Mr Cross.

Once shutting down a complaint with an absurd non sequitur: "Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)"

And once in the administrators noticeboard discussion expressing textbook prejudgement: "And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right."

Yet he takes an active part in adjudicating the complaint, promotes punishment of the whistleblower, guards against the creation of the inevitable Philip Cross page and misleadingly frames the proposed arbitration case as about Mr Galloway. And this seems to be seen as ordinary. But how do you think it will go down when exposed to hostile public scrutiny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.186.141 (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You may wish to check the difference between "whistleblower" and "whistlebellower". I have no bias in favour of Cross. I barely have an opinion on him, other than that he is clearly the victim of a coordinated off-wiki campaign. Whether that campaign is justified, is the exact question I put to ArbCom. Friends of mine think it may well be. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG, have you now stooped to schoolyard name-calling? I presume it is I whom you denigrate as a "whistlebellower." If so, your conduct as a Wikipedia Administrator is deplorable. KalHolmann (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I am disinclined to assist with your comprehension issues at this time, but thanks for asking. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG, your contempt for me is duly noted. Thanks for confirming. KalHolmann (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I find this whole thread in contempt of Wikipedia! I trust the Wikipedia bailiffs will deal with it. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You would have to ask the IP who they meant. You should also know that of the handful of people I actually hold in contempt, none, to the best of my knowledge, currently edit Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Definetly a somethingburger here.

I doubt he is paid to do so, but IMO Philip very much edits Wikipedia articles with a right-wing neoconservative and pro-Israel partisan point of view and once this theme is achieved on an article, closely martials said articles to make sure that they remain bias against the subject. Specifically this occurs on articles relating to UK left-wing figures who push back in some way against Blairism, neoconservatism and imperialism; George Galloway, Seamus Milne, Craig Murray, Jeremy Corbyn, especially that I have personally noticed/encountered. The dodgy stuff surrounding the Western backed anti-government "White Helmets" in Syria too.

Obviously, everybody is welcome to their own political views, we all have them and I personally don't have a problem with people stating them on talkpages, or whatever and arguing for parity between different viewpoints in articles, a project the size of Wikipedia is going to attract people with many different views. But Philip specifically does this in the article main space and tries to pass off neoconservative political views and sources as somehow objective and normative, which is contrary to NPOV and BLP.

George Galloway is completely right to complain in this context and the fact that the largest number of edits made to his Wikipedia article is by somebody who has clashed with him on social media absoutely needs looking into. Maybe we need to completely rewrite Galloway's article from scratch? In any case, I am glad this is now being looked at. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I need a little help here...

So a while back I salted the article CupcakKe because the artcile had gone through the afd process (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CupcakKe) and it was closed as delete. Now I find out that two seperate version of the article look to have existed for some time - one at CupcakKe and one at Cupcakke, but for some reason both are listed as being part of earlier afd. On top of that the article's have both been deleted and recreated - the latter one dramatically so. Setting aside my sockpuppetry concerns for a moment, I now have a dilemma: do I count G4 as being toward one or both articles, if not do we need separate afd's for this, and if all looks to be notable (and frankly given the logging history and the deletions several different admins I have my doubts) is it better to leave it as it is or undelete and merge the histories? What do you guys/girls think? TomStar81 (Talk) 17:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If the content was the same, the AfD would apply to both. It's about the article/topic, not the title. Natureium (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• G4 does apply to the topic rather than the title, but the contents of the article currently visible in mainspace looks nothing like the contents of the version deleted at AfD two years ago, so I don't think you could delete it under G4. I'm not convinced the subject is notable though and another AfD may well be a good idea. Hut 8.5 17:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The current version has substantially more content and references than either the last version of CupcakKe that was G4'ed or the version that I deleted after closing the AfD, but after a quick look most seem to be primary or passing mentions (a lot of Twitter and Youtube). The AfD and last deletion was 2 years ago and most of the !votes cited TOOSOON so there may be reliable sources out there now. I would suggest either letting it stay provided better sources are found and added, or taking to AfD again. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What about merging histories? Is that something that should be done, considering that both are on the same topic? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Merging histories is only done after a copy/paste pagemove, which in this instance doesn't seem to have happened. There's no reason to merge a deleted page into a live page simply because they're on the same subject. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and listed this at afd. Thanks for the help, everyone, I appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Horrible username - harassment issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Am posting here with User:Natureium's permission (diff).

So some jerk created an account User:Natureium wished he was killed and was promptly blocked. Natureium would like that account name to be gone. That is not unreasonable to me.

They requested the account name to be changed. This was refused. See thread at their talk page about this at User_talk:Natureium#Your_request_at_WP:CHU/S. We of course cannot delete accounts. User:EdJohnston kindly contacted oversight; User:Oshwah tried to help as well (see User_talk:Oshwah#Renaming)

This is a bad thing. Surely something can be done and our "rules" cannot be abused to create something persistently harassing like this. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole damn thing got revdel'd, what's the issue? Primefac (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

One issue is that it autofills every time Natureium types their name in to check logs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, the procedure for this is to send Oversight an email (usually through Special:EmailUser/Oversight). Oversighters are generally the ones who do log redactions like this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Suppression of the name isn't going to make it show up when someone starts typing in Special:Log, which was why I declined the request - the name itself is already gone, with the exception of it now being plastered everywhere while well-wishers try to get it further redacted. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's why I asked the account to be renamed, not oversighted. I'm sure whoever created this account after something I did to offend them is long gone by now and not enjoying this hubbub. Natureium (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I know, and while Oshwah made probably the best argument for not renaming (see talk page link above) I can't speak any further since I'm not a renamer. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's going to be a big problem, I'll just get over it, but I'm surprised this turned out to be so complicated. I'm sure there are worse names, so I assumed there would be a procedure for this. Aside from insulting usernames, why do we keep so many garbage usernames from years ago? Natureium (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with renaming, so I am also curious why we cannot just rename these silly account names; at least they won't show up in Special:ListUsers anymore. I am personally not really bothered by my variations, as I find a selected few of them interesting for their creativity. Alex Shih (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Sorry to add to an already-closed discussion, but requests for username suppression can be sent to the stewards as well (stewards[at]wikimedia.org), so the username can be suppressed on all wikis rather than individually on each one. I've suppressed the account in question globally now. To clarify as well: global suppression is the best solution, since it completely hides the name and doesn't leave any public logs (which renaming does). -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK queue

Seems to be empty. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC).

Uninvolved admins needed on articles under discretionary sanctions

Assault weapons and AR-15 style rifle are both under discretionary sanctions (US gun control), but that doesn't stop certain editors from revert-warring on them, to either keep non-neutral/undue material in them or remove material that is being added to make them comply with WP:NPOV, i.e. POV-pushing. So would one or more uninvolved admins please try to make everyone there understand that articles are supposed to be neutral, and that the discretionary sanctions don't apply only to those who want the articles to comply with WP:NPOV, but to everyone else too? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Not the most uninvolved but I've full-protected both for a week. Of course this does not preclude anyone else from taking other kinds of action. ansh666 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. There are very heated discussions at WP:RSN (and to a lesser degree on each of those articles, plus Assault rifle) about decidely non-neutral material that has been repeatedly added to all three of the articles, and hopefully those discussions will be over, and a consensus reached, before the protection expires. The protection will also give people a chance to discuss all of the other changes on the article talk pages... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Strange talk page posts

Can someone take a look at I.P User:45.49.226.155 please? They are asking almost gibberish questions on natural science related article talk pages and now at WikiProject Portals. I'm not sure if they are trolling, are artificial intelligence, or are just genuinely asking odd questions. Kind regards, Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

My orgone sensor is detecting Time Cube levels of peculiar here. Fear the IP who only posts on philosophy and physics talk pages while making zero sense... if they erupt into mainspace I think some swift quelling may become necessary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Terri McCormick isn't satisfied with article about her

• Factcheck1024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Terri McCormick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Factcheck1024/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I became aware of this at Articles for Creation. I would report this at COIN, but the COI editing, which is really self-promotional editing, has all been reverted, and there doesn’t seem to be any question about disclosure, since User:Factcheck1024 says that she is Terri McCormick. (We don’t know that for a fact, but ….) The sandbox appears to be a clumsy attempt to contact editor User:Shellwood, who was one of the editors who reverted the edits. The subject is saying that “Wikipedia” is edit-warring against her efforts to put “corrected info” in her biography. Having read the material that she tried to put in, it isn’t neutral and isn’t purely factual but is promotional. She requests that if she can’t update the article (which, in my opinion, is neutrally presented), then she wants it taken down. We have sometimes been willing to permit article subjects of biographies of living persons of questionable notability to request that articles be deleted. However, McCormick satisfies political notability as a former state legislator. I don’t see any issues of factual correctness that she has identified. She hasn’t tried to edit the article in the past two weeks, so it doesn’t need edit-protection. I just thought that this ought to be reported. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Her beef seems to be that it under-represents her post-politics career ("a lack of information that distorts my role as a Leadership Expert and Research in the field of Government and Policy Leadership")—which may set off potential PROMO alarm-bells, but only later...for now, if these activities are reported neutrally in RS, then I assume adding them will resolve the issue? On the assumption such sourcing exists, of course. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

First, the language that the author was trying to insert was rightly setting off promotional editing alarm bells; it was blatantly non-neutral. Second, it is up to a neutral editor to find whether her "leadership expertise" activities are neutrally reported in reliable sources. Third, I see that at least one neutral editor, User:Jytdog, and one unregistered editor are tweaking the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Since the editor has been trying to communicate at User:Factcheck1024/sandbox, I left a message there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Proactive report regarding copyright issues

It is quite common to use this board to report backlogs require an administrator attention. This report starts out with two strikes against it because it isn't a matter that requires administrator attention and it isn't a backlog. Nevertheless, I persevere.

I think most reading this would agree that keeping Wikipedia free of copyright violations is extremely important. While investigating potential copyright violations is not something that technically requires the admin bit, the majority of editors working on these problems have years of experience, and I'd prefer not to post this request at a place where some editors with little experience decide to "help".

The CopyPatrol tool is an excellent tool used to detect potential copyright violations as they occur.

While it doesn't technically have a backlog, if you clicked on the link, you'll see that the majority of cases closed are handled by a very small handful of editors. Too small.

Frankly, I'm running into a bit of burnout, and while my contributions pale compared to Diannaa, heaven help us if she decides to take a break. I think it would be good if a small handful of editors pitched in and handled a few of these items, which would help ensure that we don't run into a significant problem if a couple regulars decide to take a break.

Think of this as a proactive report, a badly abused term that might actually be appropriate in this instance.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. This is an extremely important issue now for Wikipedia. I wonder how many here have actually sought to clear up some of the plagiarism cases in the Wikipedia backlog? (I can readily defend "simple restatement of dry facts", but I ran across people who stole entire newspaper articles verbatim, and then did not even cite their sources <g>.) A "Creative Commons" license does not "cure" provable infringement. Collect (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC on speedy G13

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § Request for comment: Promising drafts. Admins will probably want to know about this, the proposal is that any editor can tag a draft with {{promising draft}} and at that point the template can't be removed and the draft can't be deleted under G13. The discussion goes into questions of review of G13s which bear directly on admin discretion and may suggest improvements in how we review tagged articles before deletion. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

To put a finer point on this - they mean a promising draft tag can not be removed by anyone under any circumstances unless the page is deleted at MfD or promoted to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarification regarding Syrian Civil War & ISIL sanctions

Following several profound community discussions over Syrian Civil War topic, as part of motion from 2013 it was concluded that the "The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic." and hence Motion 3 was enacted by user:Callanecc. As a result separate Wikipedia:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions were installed envoking 1RR policy, similar but separate from ARBPIA. I have to emphasize that Motion 1 ("While content that involves Israel in the Syrian civil war topic area does fall under the scope of Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement, the overall topic area does not.") and Motion 2 ("Concern has been raised that the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war might fall within that topic.") were rejected by the arbitration committee, hence deciding not to apply ARBPIA neither on broadly-construed Syrian Civil War articles and neither on those having to do with Israel, while installing new SCW sanctions to cover those all.

Despite the above decision, on several occasions users and administrators, not aware of the nature of the conflict and the scope of sanctions, tried to envoke ARBPIA 30/500 (refers typically to Israel-Palestine case, which is not covered by Wikipedia:GS/SCW&ISIL) upon Syrian Civil War-related articles. In 2017, administrator Ad Orienem added the 30/500 template to the Iran–Israel proxy conflict article, but following a discussion it was agreed that ARBPIA is irrelevant to Syrian conflict-related articles upon 2013 motion and the tag was indeed removed. More recently, in May 2018, administrator BU Rob13 once again added ARBPIA 30/500 tag to the Iran–Israel proxy conflict article and several others, and again following an explanation and discussion it was decided to lift the incorrect ARBPIA 30/500 tagging (in his own words administrator was not aware of the fact that Iran is not an Arab country).

Despite the clarification on Iran-Israel proxy conflict several Syrian Civil War related articles remain tagged as ARBPIA 30/500 (Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War, Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War, May 2018 Israel–Iran incidents, February 2018 Israel–Syria incident tagged by administrator BU Rob13 and January 2015 Shebaa farms incident by another), which creates confusion among editors about the nature of Syrian Civil War sanctions and whether ARBPIA additionally applies to anything related with Syria and Israel. This situation clearly goes against Motion 3, but perhaps in line with the rejected Motion 1 in 2013 arbitration. I herewith ask to correct the situation and clarify once again enacted Motion 3 against inserting ARBPIA sanctions back into the Syrian Civil War topic, unless Arbitration Committee changes the motion conclusion. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 10:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The above linked motion 3 very clearly states some issues related to the war do fall within ARBPIA. Syria is listed as an Arab country in our own article on Arab countries, and they have long been involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The article on the conflict even states that Israel's participation in the Syrian Civil War have heightened tensions related to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. To the extent that Israel and Syria come into conflict, those articles are part of ARBPIA, despite the Syrian Civil War in general not being entirely part of the topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There are two questions here:

1. Do Syrian Civil War articles, already sanctioned by SCW, also require an additional ARBPIA sanctions tool which is more aggressive, considering that the community Request to amend sanctions on Syrian Civil War articles asked to replace ARBPIA with SCW sanctions and was closed in favor.

2. The assumption that incidents between Syria and Israel during the course of the Syrian War may be considered part of the Arab-Israeli conflict requires verification by good reliable sources, which are missing; so far the incidents have been described as part of the Iran-Israel proxy conflict (May 2018 Israel–Iran incidents for example), where Israel is allied with Saudi Arabia and Sunni Arab states against Iran, while Ba'athist Syria supports Iran and was banished from the Arab League.

Note that until recently there have been practically no cases of double-tagging Syrian Civil War topics with both sanctions types and that the Iran-Israel proxy conflict is widely agreed not being part of the Arab-Israeli conflict or somehow related with it.GreyShark (dibra) 16:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - @Newyorkbrad, NuclearWarfare, Courcelles, Salvio giuliano, AGK, SilkTork, David Fuchs, Timotheus Canens, Roger Davies, Worm That Turned, and Risker: I would like to ask the opinion and interpretation of administrators who took part in the motion in 2013 (removing ARBPIA sanctions from Syrian Civil War article and installing the SCW sanctions).GreyShark (dibra) 16:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• The motion was for a temporary fix (I think we were deciding on the exact length and decided on 30 days in the end). I'm not sure what has happened in the meantime, but I don't see this as an appropriate matter for the now defunk 2013 Committee, especially given that we only agreed to extend ARBPIA sanctions for one month. I think we expected the community to then discuss the matter and come up with an agreement. If the community cannot, then they need to ask the current Committee. SilkTork (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point - the temporary 30day sanctions on Syrian Civil War were extended via community discussion at WP:AN, which has placed pages related to the Syrian Civil War under general sanctions indefinitely effective 21:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC).GreyShark (dibra) 16:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: as closing administrator for the Request to amend sanctions on Syrian Civil War articles - your opinion would be most welcome.GreyShark (dibra) 17:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Massive backlog at WP:SPI

There are cases that have been open for over three months, and some that haven't been commented on for over two. The CUs have been responding fairly quickly, but not every case involves CUs, and either way SPI still needs admin patrollers to finish things up. ansh666 08:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyvios from Bostonbruinsfan22

Bostonbruinsfan22 (talk · contribs)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_McAvoy&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danton_Heinen&action=history

I just noticed I did my third revert. (not really though, I improved the image on Commons so the third time I put it back it was quite a different image) I suspect 74.12.161.95 is just Bostonbruinsfan22 but logged out. The image they keep putting back is an obvious copyvio. The user is also problematic on Commons. Next time they put it back I can't revert it anymore so this needs to end.

Warnings on their talk page at Commons, warnings here, they are completely deaf.

..and the IP reverted it again and I'm out of reverts. Great. Ok, Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule exemption 5 covers copyright violations. Good. Reverted them again. Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• And this is just vandalism. (unless it automatically goes blank if you try to revert to an image that doesn't exist, because their copyvios have been deleted from Commons.. it doesn't do that, does it?) Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Question on enforceability of voluntary editing restrictions

Is there a current consensus on whether voluntary editing restrictions are a) enforceable b) whether someone who has agreed to one requires a community discussion to end one they have agreed to? I have assumed, due to the existence of WP:Editing restrictions/Voluntary, that they were the same as any restriction placed by the community as a WP:CBAN. So, it would be possible for an editor to make a promise of 'I will do/not do X; If I do not I will be blocked until I agree to do X'.

The reason I ask is I have been considering a potential, opt-in, solution to community recall and the current RfA has brought my attention back to the issue. In essence the 'opt-in' binding recall is given teeth by an editing restricting which says 'I will be subject to this process and if I am recalled I will resign. If I do not I will be blocked until I do'. I wrote a more detailed draft of the idea a couple of days ago at Jbhunley/Essays/Binding community recall.

I am more interested in input on whether the basic idea of whether it is possible to make an agreement between an editor, entered into voluntarily (as sometimes happens at ANI) and the community can be enforced than I am on the details of the process. Although I would appreciate any input, particularly from administrators, on the essay talk page about how the proposed 'contract' can be modified to make it more appealing to sign up to. If the concept is viable I hope it will allow us to address a perennial issue in an organic, bottom up, manner rather in the all-or-nothing way which has failed so often.

To everyone who has read this far; thank you for your time. Jbh ^Talk 13:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Any thoughts on this? We have a couple logged at Editing restrictions/Voluntary but no guidance at WP:CBAN. Is this practice now generally and non-controversialy accepted or is an RfC needed? This page is more widely watched than CBAN so I hope for a bit of input to make sure what I think consensus is is accurate before making BOLD changes there. Jbh ^Talk 16:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Jbhunley: I reverted your change to WP:BAN. Since this practice is so rare and is virtually never logged, I don’t think we have an established policy on this. How I would view it as an admin would depend on the circumstances it was agreed to, how long ago it was, and how disruptive the violation was. If it was disruptive I would consider it a factor weighing towards a longer block, if it wasn’t, I would view it as them no longer voluntarily agreeing to the restriction. I would also never personally log such a sanction as I think the whole concept of a logged voluntary restriction means it isn’t voluntary, so it defeats the purpose of informally asking people about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Copied from CBAN talk to keep things centralized: "voluntary restrictions are enforceable simply by saying they are and sanctioning their violation. The community has already accepted this tacitly by recording bans at WP:Editing restrictions/Voluntary. You seem to be saying those restrictions no longer valid. Is that the case?"

In re your comment: The issue is that the logging page does not indicate that the restrictions logged there are in any way different from one another. In fact the Rusf10 one has been treated here precisely an a community imposed CBAN would be. I see no indication that this restriction would be treated as 'unenforceable' either. Also, please note that this 'voluntary' ban explicitly requires an appeal to lift it.

As you say, policy follows practice and practice is that a voluntary ban is enforceable. If there is general disagreement on this then an RfC should be put together before more restrictions are logged as 'voluntary'. This thread was up for five days before I made the edit at CBAN and not a single editor opined on the matter so it seemed relativity uncontroversial – maybe more will chime in now to get a better sense of how editors see these types of bans. Jbh ^Talk 17:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 17:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ha! We cross posted twice, I think WT:BAN is a better location, but for anyone who is curious, I basically said there that policy does indeed follow practice and the practice of enforcing voluntary bans as community sanctions is virtually non-existent. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock appeal from User:MassiveYR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pasted from user's talkpage:

Per Standard offer. It has been slightly more than six months without any sockpuppetry and block evasion. I was blocked for the use multiple accounts which violates Wikipedia's policies. However a block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for and I will not continue to cause damage or disruption to the Wikipedia community. I intend to edit constructively and get back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, WP:AFC and reverting vandalism while abiding by WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. Thank you.MassiveYR ♠

CU reveals no other edits from user's current IP address (other data is too stale to check). This SPI archive may be of interest when considering unblocking. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose an unblock at this time. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. We shouldn't unblock a promotional sock farm for any reason. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I concur with Rob - this sockfarm sprawled all over the place and there was evidently major meatpuppetry going on - not just "friends" as MassiveYR claimed in a previous unblock request. SmartSE (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Undisclosed native advertising and sockpuppetry are both egregiously dishonest and unethical activities that are fundamentally incompatible with being a Wikipedian. Why should we believe a word they say? And how can we tell they're not using proxies? MER-C 13:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Under no circumstances TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - definitely not. There's evidence the account is part of a large spam operation involving numerous individuals, which has gone to significant lengths to conceal their promotional activities. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose No explanation of what MassiveYR is going to do, if that they(??) are unblocked. The trust isn't there. talk to !dave 14:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per all the above, a bad idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose when a promo editor names AFC as an area they intend to focus on, not help that project needs. Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC Enforcability of logged editing restrictions

An RfC has been opened about whether voluntary editing restrictions logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Voluntary can be enforced in the same was as those logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Your input would be appriciated.

The RfC is located at WP:Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions Jbh ^Talk 06:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I need help reviewing a Global RFC

Dear admins, I am preparing a Global Request for Comments about financial support for admins that might be relevant for you .

Can you please review the draft and give me some feedback about how to improve it? Thank you.

MassMessage sent by Micru on 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll say it: I both expect and hope this proposal doesn't have any chance whatsoever of gaining support. There are nearly-impossible problems with both finding funding to pay editors, and the inevitable cultural shifts having an official paid editing/admin corps would cause. Throwing new-age mumbo-jumbo a seed group of volunteers would be selected by a commitee based on self-reported acts of wisdom ... This seed group of volunteers, composed by at least 3 people, but no more than 8[3], would be tasked to cultivate their deep listening in as well makes it completely unworkable in my opinion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Creation of "Ryan Hampton (author)"

No means no. MER-C 09:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Page name of "Ryan Hampton (author)" is banned and only admin has ability to create. Subject exceeds notability requirements. See here: https://g.co/kgs/Y5SkD7. Can an admin create this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.112.166 (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC) That article title has been blacklisted due to repeated disruption and sockpuppetry (see, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Ryan Hampton (Author)). clpo13(talk) 08:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC) check the notability. not attempting to create or edit page. asking for admin to evaluate subject "ryan hampton (author)" - subject should be listed in wikipedia historically. hampton is a highly notable public figure in america. previous sockpuppetry shouldn't disqualify a legitimate article on notable public figure. block is keeping a highly visible and controversial author from inclusion on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.112.166 (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC) MER-C Subject is a bestselling author and lead authority on the opioid epidemic with notable news sources from all major networks, profiles in major U.S. newspapers including the NYT, Wall Street Journal, etc. How is this not acceptable for creation of an article for editors to begin building? His work is credited in numerous credible academic journals as well. he also holds elected office in southern california. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.112.166 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

West Ham

This page has been subject to vandalism by one user - Premfc123 (talk · contribs). It's pretty clearly vandalism, as it constitutes derogatory comments about West Ham (not even on the football club page!). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss

The Troubles: Motion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee clarifies the following: All sanctions placed under remedy 3.2 of The Troubles prior to its replacement with remedy 5 are considered discretionary sanctions. Specifically, the 1RR sanction affecting the topic area is considered a form of page restriction placed as a discretionary sanction, and the additional awareness requirements regarding page restrictions apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Troubles: Motion

List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan numbers dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see the current numbering at List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan. The 12th PM's govt was dissolved and later reinstated so the number for both terms before dissolution and after restoration should be 12. Now the 11th PM was Benazir Bhutto and she was re-elected in new elections and new voting after 12th PM resigned so she should be the 13th PM. She was not reinstated like 12th PM so the number should not be same for her 2nd term. Now after that 12th PM was re-elected in new elections but his number is still 12 like he's reinstated like before. Isn't this messed up? There's a difference between restoration and re-election. When a PM is restored he is restored to same old office but when he is re-elected it's new election, new voting, new oath and so new number as well. These numbers would probably be okay if these were consecutive terms like Obama was re-elected. I've tried to change this but my edits are removed and asked to discuss about it. Please I want admin's view on this. And another thing is we can't find any source which is focused on numbering. Some newspapers have used Wikipedia's numbering but it can't be used as source here as they are using Wikipedia as source. And this is a common sense thing so I think admins should make a decision on this because there are many attempts to change it and many questions/discussion regarding the numbers on PM's talk pages. Please finish this dispute--119.160.98.16 (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Some countries will number an individual multiple times, if there's another individual(s) serving between their non-consecutive tenures. Meanwhile, other countries number an individual just once, regardless if their multiple terms are consecutive or not. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

In any case, this is a content dispute, so administrators would not be taking any action. The proper place to bring this up is at Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan; you may also want to raise the issue with WikiProject Pakistan for more opinions. –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock Request by User:M.A. Martin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:M.A. Martin was blocked indefinitely in January 2018 as not here to edit constructively. They have requested an unblock. In doing so, they pinged a large number of editors, some of whom are not administrators but only AFC reviewers, including me. I made the apparent mistake of replying, and wasn't particularly positive, but neither recommended an unblock nor recommended declining the unblock. It seems that more than 48 hours later there hasn't been an administrative reply to their unblock request, maybe because a non-admin responded (non-conclusively). Will an administrator please take a look at their request?

(I don't think that they have made a compelling unblock request, but five months is close enough to six months that a standard offer might be in order.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• It’s in CAT:RFU. Someone will get to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odd IPv6 construction?

Hey all, I don't think I've ever seen this before. If you look at the recent (10 June 2018) edits at Toilet: Ek Prem Katha, there are a few IPs with the same ending bits:

• 2409:4053:717:e261:fcc2:f2aa:6fe8:25de (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:205:2484:833f:fcc2:f2aa:6fe8:25de (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4053:61f:78:fcc2:f2aa:6fe8:25de (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Note how they all have the "fcc2:f2aa:6fe8:25de" part? Clearly they're all related, right? I'm not at all familiar with range blocking, but is it possible to range block an IP constructed this way? (Hypothetically, although they are generating disruptive edits...) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Those IPs all belong to Jio, which, in my view, is the Indian counterpart for T-Mobile. You can't block a range that includes all three IPs; the system won't let you. The two 2409:4053: IPs generate 2409:4053:600:0:0:0:0:0/39, which is a fairly busy and wide range, and I am not going to analyze all the edits from that range to see if it's justified. The last parts of the IPs have nothing to do with the range - just coincidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly slightly more than coincidence. I would interpret it as being related to the MAC address (the network card) of the same user, though it seems like an unusual construction. It would make for an easy hypothetical edit filter :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting - they're not EUI-64 addresses. If they were you'd see 0xfffe in there somewhere. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 19:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: He's done the same sort of financial vandalism from 2405:205:2502:7db9:5db3:94b1:9775:2edc (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well, but that occurred before the pattern. Anyway, I'm not asking for any action on this, I was just curious if anybody'd seen any IP addresses structured like this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Closure of RFC announcement

The RFC at the Village Pump regarding a modification of the language of WP:NMFD has been closed. The result of the discussion was that drafts may be deleted for notability at MfD if it also meets one of the deletion reasons and consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace (emphasis added). Please see the discussion for the full close. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Block and unblock of Mztourist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Buckshot06 blocked Mztourist. I posted a message at Buckshot's Talk page advising them that I thought they were WP:INVOLVED. They have not yet responded; nor have they edited at Wikipedia since my post. Other administrators at Mztourist's Talk page have commented about WP:INVOLVED, including NeilN, Dlohcierekim, and SQL.

I bring Buckshot's block and my unblock here for review.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock per my comment on Mztourist's talkpage. SQL^{Query me!} 17:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock per my previous comment. Buckshot06 should not have blocked an editor when they themselves were involved in a content dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock. Blocking admin appears to have been involved. Would like to hear from them in case there is more than meets the eye.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to say, it's probably just a question of the blocker doing a bit of (re: "INVOLVEDness") revision: at ~700 admin actions in >9 years, things have probably changed around them. Not an excuse, but certainly a reason. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Unlikely. This isn't a user who is unlikely to know what INVOLVED means. While we're at it, WTF is going on here? Indef block of an IP that hadn't edited since 2013. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Berean Hunter It's easy to make a mistake. Anyone can make a mistake, and while I'm inclined to unblock, I could be wrong. Would like to hear from Blocker in case I missed something.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

If other admins believe this was unjustified, so be it. Would greatly welcome other admins taking a look at the feud between Mztourist and A bicyclette, over a number of Vietnam War related issues; if some others can review their interactions and I can take a break from (even better, cease) trying to referee it, that would be great. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: You understand you can't opine on content, or take sides in a content dispute (even if you are acting as a third opinion), and still use your admin tools on matters relating to the content dispute? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock seeing as the blocking admin was involved. Buckshot06 would also be interesting to hear what you have to say about what Black Kite brought up. Indefinitely blocking an IP that hasn't edited since 2013?--5 albert square (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at List of Air Expeditionary units of the United States Air Force and the IP's edits; this was an IP trying to remove public information from the page. Basically NOTCENSORED and removal of content. I did not want him coming back to vandalise again such a low-traffic page. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

But the IP hasn't edited that article since December 2012 and hasn't edited since 2013. So why block them 5 years later?--5 albert square (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who supported this unblock. Per Buckshot06's comments above I would certainly welcome any independent Admin's advice on dealing with A bicyclette. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Captain Obvious here with the observation that a 5ya IP would probably be no longer used by the same person now. (OCD). -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have opened an ANI complaint against Buckshot06 here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:HOUNDing by Admin User:Buckshot06 regards Mztourist (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Error

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I moved a page in error and I would like to ask an administrator to revert this move.

I moved Structure of the Hellenic Air Force to Hellenic Air Force Order of Battle.

Please return the article to Structure of the Hellenic Air Force, so I can then update it. Thank you, noclador (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Noclador:  Done While I have your attention, hopefully the updating will including adding some references, as the article is unsourced at present. Cheers, Fish+Karate 09:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. And the lack of references was one of the reasons I did an update of the structure. All the info is from the website of the Hellenic Air Force and I added 8 inline citations to the respective organizational sections on the air force's website. cheers, noclador (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, good work. Fish+Karate 14:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andrevan case dismissed

Because Andrevan (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator and a bureaucrat, this case is dismissed. Andrevan may not regain either the administrator or bureaucrat permission without passing a new request for adminship and/or bureaucratship.

Passed 12 to 0 on 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Andrevan case dismissed

Original announcement

User Pahlevun long term issues with POV pushing

• Pahlevun

Currently using false/deceptive edit summaries to remove sources that have been reviewed as reliable. Previously warned to stop disruptive editing, recently warned about BLP violation, has been in a number of edit wars/conflicts in the last few years for WP:NPOVD about pro-Iran topics.

Is this an issue? or should this be taken up elsewhere? I noticed Pahlevun has been reported here before but don't think anything came out of it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• It definitely looks like a content dispute to me, primarily at People's Mujahedin of Iran. Nothing actionable here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Seems to be a recurring theme with Iran topics:. I haven't had time to look for more, but there are more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

• At least when it comes to the People's Mujahedin of Iran, Pahlevun has consistently pushed the mainstream view of the MeK that is found in reliable sources; namely, that the group is a dishonest cult reviled in its home country for siding with Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq War. It is the pro-MeK side that has engaged in a systematic assault on Wikipedia's content policies, including large-scale sockpuppetry. I am less familar with Pahlevun's editing history in other topic areas, but in this major case he has acted with considerable restraint despite provocations.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• EC: In fact, it seems that, if anything, Stefka Bulgaria should be sanctioned for his conduct regarding this RSN thread and this disputed edit; Stefka Bulgaria is engaged in citekill and edit warring using FRINGE and self-published sources to paint a rosy picture of the MeK that cannot be found in the academic literature.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria continues to edit war at National Council of Resistance of Iran despite a clear lack of consensus for his proposed change at RSN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• What we do in Wikipedia is resume from reliable sources, that is all we do. Pahlevun keeps reverting a statement on People's Mujahedin of Iran backed by several scholarly RS, including Abrahamian(1989) - a source throughly used within the article. This is pushing a POV, and as noted above, this has been recurring within several other Iran-related articles.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• A 1989 source should not be used for sweeping generalizations about the political situation in Iran in 2018.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• More recent reliable sources have also been provided. There is no substance to your argument. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I would not use Con Coughlin as source for contentious "facts" stated in wikivoice. Please stop edit warring and observe WP:BRD.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: What about taking all of this to Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I would agree with that. I don't think there's anything actionable in this complaint against Pahlevun.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no Idea why a user with the first edit on 18 December 2017 should be aware of any "long term issues" here, however, I can guess that comments made by IPs out of the blue in my talkpage and some certain comments elsewhere may be connected to what TheTimesAreAChanging is talking about. I see no reason to waste my time more than this here in Administrators' noticeboard, unless an administrator asks me something. Regards Pahlevun (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Block of User:FourSticksNow

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'll be heading to bed soon, but looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Felidae&action=history, User:FourSticksNow looks to be a sock of the other recent, blocked editors. Chris857 (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking a bit longer at the page history, I think it might be a continuation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJCola. Chris857 (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup. That's definitely the 'Roland Atwood Baines vandal' again, aka prolific puppetmaster User:RJCola. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

And User:DuncanCanStickIt. Chris857 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help please.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fshy89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please block quickly, for WP:NPA/WP:NOTHERE and general disruption. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked for edit warring on this page, at a minimum. Someone with the patience to comb through his other edits is of course free to extend that. —Cryptic 23:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

a few diffs for NPA consideration. See summaries [46] [47] [48] [49]

For the harrassment see the 12 restores of the content that John from Idegon had already removed from his talkpage. Meters (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

My initial encounter with him was on Fight Network, an article rife with MEAT/UPE issues, where he restored an unsourced change made by a blocked IP editor, just seconds after the IP was blocked. Requested reliable secondary sources, he added a primary source and an unreliable one. Reverted again, and requested secondary sources. Also requested and was given Semi protection for the article due to its history. Suggested clearly that he take it to the article talk page. Got the message Meters references in reply, an obcenity laced, unsigned message, which I reverted. In theory, this is a new editor, in which case I may have been slightly bitey. Given the history of the article, I doubt it. In any case, his obcenity laced edit summaries, his retaliatory blanking of Meters userpage, and the edit warring, clearly add up to NOTHERE. Request indef. I hate pro wrestling. John from Idegon (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

If there is any doubt an indef is appropriate, see Special:AbuseLog/21346892 and Special:AbuseLog/21346895. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-blocked, indeffed for NPA/NOTHERE. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration Enforcement Appeals by Andrevan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Andrevan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Andrevan has submitted two AE appeals. I have included them as two level 3 headers here, because I think having two seperate level two header threads would be a mess. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Additional copied from Andrevan's talk page

If the community believes that I am likely to be disruptive, even having resigned my advanced permissions, it is within the community's rights to overturn my block or TBAN appeals. I believe I have shown I am thoughtful, deliberative, and reasonable when it comes to these disputes and discussions. My goal is not to disrupt or to push political positions. As I'm sure I've said at other times, I've been here since 2003 and I stand by the vast majority of my editing history and decisions made. I believe the 1932 TBAN is overly broad, and that the block is unnecessarily punitive given how cooperative I am. Anyone is free to disagree, but I believe some folks are forgetting to AGF, especially given that I've just resigned under a cloud and submitted to community pressure. Andrevan@ 22:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Jbh ^Talk 23:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

TBAN appeal

Andrevan is appealing the expanded topic ban I gave him after his most recent block (logged ban). His previous topic ban was from Donald Trump, broadly construed. I increased this to post-1932 US politics, broadly construed. Andrevan would like the total AP2 ban reduced to just Trump again. The text of Andrevan's appeal is as follows, and the full context of the talk page discussion can be seen here:

I do wish to appeal, because 1932 is an arbitrary cutoff, but further, the first block was for appealing on Jimbo's talk page and a technical violation but not an example of willful editing or article talk page edits, the second block was for blocking a sockpuppet that we're discussing now. I have consistently agreed to abide by the Trump ban as clearly Trump makes me incredibly angry and at some level, I can't think straight about him. But there's no reason to block from editing say, Bob Dole. Andrevan@ 21:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Sanctioning admin comment: I increased the TBAN because I think Trump bans are easily gameable and can cause confusion. Andrevan has already been blocked twice in two weeks for violating the original Trump TBAN, which is enough in my mind to show it was not working. The second of these blocks was for reverting a user on a non-Trump AP2 topic. If AP2 is something he has strong enough feelings about that he is only going to edit there and make accidental mistakes on the Trump ban that cause even more drama for the community to deal with, I feel it is in the best interest of the project for there to be a clearer bright line. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I feel that expanding the "Trump ban" to include all post-2016 American politics is absolutely necessary to avoid ambiguous situations, but I see no clear need for anything beyond that. There may be a need for two separate "standard" topic bans in this area or to modify the 1932 cutoff for WP:ARBAPDS; other World War II-era figures such as Hitler are fine without discretionary sanctions. I note that there is a benefit in having a cutoff which is significantly earlier than strictly required; it decreases the motivation for rules-lawyering regarding that cut-off. (Is Bob Dole a post-2000 political figure? Who knows, and it may matter. Is Herbert Hoover a post-1932 figure? Who knows, and it's very unlikely to matter.) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh, anything post-2000 is related to post-2016. It wasn't that long ago, and given that the Clintons were also in the 90s, I'd be inclined to include that too. I personally am not a fan of specially crafted bans, as they tend to lead to WikiLawyering. Andrevan couldn't follow the limited TBAN, so now he gets a TBAN from the entire conflict area. ArbCom has, for better or worse, created 1932 as the cutoff. The lowest I would go here if I was crafting a special ban would be 1980 (Ronald Reagan and the modern Republican party). I don't think setting up special time period bans for each and every user is a good path to go on though, so unless ArbCom changes the cutoff, I'm of the view that if someone can't handle a lesser restriction or TBAN, the entire topic area is the best way to handle this. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • It's impossible to do a special ban for every user, but an agreement for a separate cutoff for Trump-related TBANs might be reasonable. For post-2016 American politics, basically everything is related to Trump even if there's a reasonable case it isn't; state legislators and mayors will almost certainly have some opinion on Trump that could be included in the article, while an article like Juanita Millender-McDonald does not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure, but I think without a collective consensus on a date, using the standardized topic area date from ArbCom is best, and I don't think this is the case to try to work out the perfect number on. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I think we'll need more than two years before we can standardize post-2016 like that. Per below, I think '94 would be a reasonable cutoff, though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for pretty much the reasons I oppose the block appeal. [50] A large portion of Andrevan's 'issues' have been in relation to contemporary American politics. The "temporary insanity" about Russian spies; The bad block of Dewythiel at Freedom Caucus, etc. are all wider in scope than just "Trump". Nor, according to Evidence#reblock of USer:Sk-gorka is this limited to recent events.
  Regardless of whether 1932 is "arbitrary" or not, after recent events, Andrevan has shown himself simply incapable of the good judgment needed for a narrow topic ban to be effective. If he had that judgment he would not have been near a discussion about whether the Freedom Caucus should be described as 'far-right'. I firmly believe both that the ban should remain 'pre1932' and fully expect it will need to be made indefinite sooner rather than later. Jbh ^Talk 23:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'm sympathetic to the reasons above why not to do this, especially as Tony suggests it's easy to blur 2016/2018 politics back into the 90s. Still, this isn't an Arb case, and it's just one editor, so I don't see a strong reason why the community couldn't use a more exact knife. I'd suggest post-1994 US politics as a broadly-encompassing swath of "modern era" politics. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I would consider it 1980, not 1994, but regardless, I would not like the precedent this sets, and thus oppose it so won't be changing it myself. Tailored TBANS tend to not work, as the Trump ban shows. ArbCom has already given us a number, we have no need to create a special one for each user. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: I have presented Andrevan with a way forward here:[51] If he "gets it" he will take my advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I find Guy Macon's analogy and argument below to be persuasive. That said, I am uncomfortable with the speculation in the block appeal thread regarding Andrevan being in a crisis. While he has undeniably messed up big-time over the past two weeks, I don't think it's fair to speculate about his mental health. Lepricavark (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment For the discussion on why a particular date was thought necessary as the standard for AP2, and why the particular date 1932 was used, see [[52]]. Basically, anything without a fixed date had proven to be to easily gamed, and the general feeling was that contemporary political conflicts were in some sense generally similar (or, generally a continuation of those) since the start of the New Deal. Myself, I suggested 1945 as the date, but looking back, I probably was thinking more about world politics in general. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A sanction is a sanction, and this is not ARCA; this is to appeal the whole sanction itself, not to modify the sanction in question. I can see why Andrevan is disadvantaged, but he shouldn't be editing Bob Dole. He should go for a nice long walk somewhere, or meet up with some friends or whatever; to put Guy Macon's suggestion in perspective. talk to !dave 08:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (Note: I am WP:INVOLVED at the Trump and related articles, so my comments here are as a regular editor, not an admin.) Andrevan talks about his “long service here,” but actually his service here since 2008 has consisted of brief bursts of activity followed by months of minimal or non-activity.[53] When he came back to Wikipedia on May 23, it was clearly and entirely for the purpose of adding negative material about Trump and battling what he perceived as whitewashing, defined as opposition to anything negative; he was convinced any such opposition showed pro-Trump bias or possibly corruption on the part of the editor. During the following week he made 12 edits to Donald Trump and 102 edits to Talk:Donald Trump; his very first edit to the talk page was to accuse someone of “tendentious editing to defend Mr. Trump and his associates”, “journalistic malpractice,” and ”probable partistan (sic) protectorship and ownership of the article in a POV pushing vein.” This to an editor he had never encountered before and on an article he had never edited before had edited once in 2005. Virtually everything else he said at that article and talk page was along the same lines and worse. I am regularly active at that article, and he has the most combative attitude I have ever seen there. It’s clear that he has such a chip on his shoulder, and is so obviously here only to WP:Right great wrongs, that he should not be allowed near political articles until he has shown he can respect Wikipedia’s neutrality policies, such as by contributing constructively in other areas and respecting other editors. I encourage him to follow that path. But my hunch is that if the TBAN is kept in place, he will disappear from Wikipedia for its duration, coming back when it expires to resume the only kind of editing he is interested in. And if the TBAN is reduced from American politics to just Trump, I predict that we will see a resumption of the limit-testing and wikilawyering that we saw so clearly demonstrated in the latest incident. If he can prove me wrong, by staying active during the TBAN and doing constructive editing in non-political areas, I will gladly apologize for these predictions and welcome him back. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with MelanieN on him being extraordinarily combative, and I don't see that he has demonstrated that he can edit in the area in a non-battleground manner; AP2 is definitely a lot more clear area than "trump-related", and he hasn't indicated what articles he wants to edit but cannot with the AP2 ban, or that he wouldn't act in the same manner with say the Nixon article than the Trump one Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Over just a couple weeks of editing, Andrevan has approached every issue he touched with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. This behavior is by no means limited to politics, as he kept defending his unrelated admin actions even after dozens of fellow editors and admins had politely shown him the error of his ways. And here he is, mere hours after resigning to escape his ArbCom case, he immediately defies the community by wikilawyering against his block and his TBAN. Shameful. The TBAN remains absolutely necessary, hoping that Andrevan will gain some level-headedness over Summer. He seems to be an articulate person, and must have been a terrific editor 10 years ago, when so much was being built. For better or for worse, today's Wikipedia does not tolerate such a combative attitude. — JFG ^talk 20:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Super Mario Effect

In videogames, The Super Mario Effect is as follows: When Mario gets a power up that turns him into Super Mario, a mistake that would normally kill him as ordinary Mario simply turns him from Super Mario to ordinary Mario, then he has to make another mistake to be killed. Likewise when an administrator does something that would get an ordinary editor blocked or topic banned he is desysopped, turning him into an ordinary editor. Then he has to do something else wrong to be actually blocked or topic banned.

Would an ordinary user who showed the same behavior have his topic ban reduced from post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed to some lesser topic ban, such as Trump-only or changing the standard date to 2000? I think not. Especially if, as is the case here, he violated the Trump topic ban by discussing Trump on non-Trump pages. It's just too easy for someone who hates or loves Trump to compare Trump to Nixon, Reagan, or Clinton, depending on what point they want to make.

There is an obvious exception in the case of someone who was desysopped for misuse of the tools with no problem edits. Just as a block stops the bad editor from making any further bad edits, a desysop stops a bad admin from doing any more bad adminning. Preventative, not punitive.

Other that this exception, admins should be treated like everyone else. They shouldn't have their topic ban reduced because they have "already suffered enough" by having the bit denied them (please note that we don't treat editors who fail an RfA any differently because of their suffering and being denied the bit). Likewise we shouldn't give a desysopped admin extra harsh treatment when dealing with any edits he or she has made.

Just Say No to the Super Mario Effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I like the bit when Mario gets a hammer. Hehe, monkeys. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, but we're talking about Mario getting hammered while losing his bit. EEng 21:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Call for snow close

Per WP:SNOW, further discussion has a snowball's chance in hell of changing the result here. Could someone uninvolved please close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would normally agree, but notice how Andrevan was repeatedly hammered in several discussions of his behaviour, and has nevertheless persisted. His temperament seems to require a strong showing of how many people believe his position to be untenable. (Yes, it pains me to write this, as you and I supported his amends after he resigned. This editor needs several meters worth of snowfall to cool down.) — JFG ^talk 20:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it can be closed, but an uninvolved admin needs to close it as it is an AE sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried to close it as a snow close but apparently an Admin needs to close this not a lowly editor Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A lowly editor should count as double-uninvolved. Natureium (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Highly uninvolved. EEng 22:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The text of Andrevan's block appeal is below. This block was placed by NeilN

Have resigned adminship, weeklong block is punitive. Andrevan@ 21:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Classic Super Mario Effect logic. See above. The weeklong block was clearly preventative. Just look at the behavior it was designed to prevent more of. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ugh, on my way out for a few days but just saw this. As my time is limited I’m going to reply to both things real quick here: The bad block they made was for violating 3RR when the user hadn’t done so and in fact had stopped editing after being warned. That the user they issued the bad block to later, in a seperate investigation by another admin, turned out to be a sock is irelevant but exaclty the sort of poorly-reasoned eqivocating that Andrevan has been using to try and explain away their poor judgment. And the block they themselves are serving is not just for that bad block but also for the topic ban violation, which involved both the bad block and a bad revert, so possession of the tools is also irelevant. More importantly though, I have the feeling this is a user in crisis, who is losing all perspective and can’t even keep their story straight anymore (having just yesterday said they would not appeal the block and acknowledged that they violated th topic ban, and rebuffed another user’s comments urging a “good faith” unblock) so a little time away is just what they need, and just what the project needs. It’s only a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Or we could just do what we usually do, which is to talk about it until the week runs out...

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You blocked me from editing. Prepare to be talked to death." --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose he violated his topic ban and made a block that not only was bad but then proceeded to INVOLVE themselves in the content dispute against existing consensus and in violation of DS on the article. He still does not understand that he should not have even been editing that page much less acting as an administrator - "Far from being a "bad block," it was a very good block. My reasoning wasn't quite right, and I am sorry for that. But my intuition was sound."[54] A week block, even on top of loss of tools was generous. Jbh ^Talk 22:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above - A week a way is the best thing for them and hopefully it'll do them the world of good, I also agree with the current topic ban - I feel this editor will push those boundaries so to save all of that shit I support the topic ban. –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The week long block was imposed after a 24 hour block for the same topic ban violation. That is a standard progression. The fact that he picked up a topic ban and 2 blocks within the span of a week is telling. --2600:8800:1300:16E:39CB:C2B4:1ADB:1F2F (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Blocking admin's comment: This was a straightforward block for a straightforward topic ban violation. We don't unblock for topic ban violations if an editor appeals with, "but the content I added was good" and we shouldn't unblock here. --NeilN ^{talk to me}
• Oppose: no Super Mario effect. The TBAN was put into place correctly, and standard policy has been followed. No exceptions simply because someone has lost their advanced permissions. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 23:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is anyone else seeing a pattern here and realizing yet that we will be back here time and again with Andrevan until he's indeffed and/or community banned? I agree with Beeblebrox, there's something serious happening. Could be the community will have to do something based not just on future disruption, but WP:NOTTHERAPY, as well. I'm starting to feel bad for Andrevan because I also believe there's a real disconnect from reality happening before our eyes. Regardless, this is turning into a ridiculous time-sink and complete net-negative. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for sadly STILL not getting it. --Tarage (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per NeilN. Andrevan's note on his talk about community recall was well said, but a second violation in short succession after the first suggests this is warranted. A number of the comments above are a little too close to calling this a cool-down block for my comfort. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This user was not blocked for the misuse on admin tools. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lebanon ECP AE review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently an AE request that I closed determined that the country of Jordan as a whole was not reasonably construed to be covered by the committee imposed general restrictions for the Arab-Israeli conflict (30/500, 1RR, and 24 hour restriction of a contested edit by the person making the edit). I thought it would be good to review other articles on Middle Eastern countries that were under ECP to see where they stood.

Lebanon is the first I've looked at, but I think it is similar to Jordan in that while conflict with Israel does exist, the article as a whole is not about this, and as such it doesn't fall into the narrower "reasonably construed" framework. Consistent with the AE consensus re: Jordan, I'm proposing that: Extended confirmed protection be removed from Lebanon and the Arab-Israeli 1RR page notice be removed. Pinging @Sandstein, GoldenRing, RegentsPark, and Seraphimblade: as the admins other than myself who commented on that AE. TBallioni (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support this is a case where we have to be reasonable in the reasonably construed. Vast majority of the page doesn't have to do with the conflict. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Just as a note: yes, this sanction is reasonably construed, not broadly construed like most ArbCom sanctions. In other words, while it is still relatively broad, it is much narrower than the usual sanctions either the community or ArbCom authorize. TBallioni (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my previous statements that while AE 500/30 should be used freely, it should not be used automatically. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment why not just remove it from all countries? All countries involved are related to each other through conflict, but the top level country articles don't generally revolve around the conflict. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Because some countries/national entities absolutely should not be removed. Israel and the State of Palestine are 100% within these restrictions in my view as examples. Other Middle Eastern countries may be both depending on article content and real world events. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support for Lebanon as well, for the same reasons that I outlined for Jordan at the AE request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support I agree with NeilN on not using this automatically. --regentspark (comment) 19:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Neither support or oppose. The issue is with content which is reasonably construed to be within the terms of the sanction, NOT with articles per se. By noting specific articles as "safe" it opens the system to gaming, and if we leave it intentionally open on this issue, it is more useful. While not every edit to articles about Jordan and Lebanon would necessarily fall within the purview of the sanction, some are, and we should be assessing edits and not articles for such sanctions. While some of the sanctions (for example 30/500) are clearly applied per article, I worry about giving people license to disrupt in these articles; or contrariwise, overapplication of the sanctions when the edits are not germane to the conflict at hand. More nuance is needed here. --Jayron32 04:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: While I might agree that more nuance would be good here, nonetheless all of the sanctions in question (the general 1RR restriction and the general prohibition) are applied per-page, the latter being enforced by extended-confirmed protection. There is therefore a need to interpret the committee's "reasonably construed" language to decide whether protection should be applied to these pages or not - if it's not, then any non-extended-confirmed editor should be allowed to edit those pages, even if the edit would fall under ARBPIA DS; if it is, then non-extended-confirmed editors will be excluded from editing these articles, even if their edits have nothing to do with the PIA topic. I favour excluding these articles from the restrictions; imagine being a new Jordanian or Lebanese editor, wanting to improve the article about your country, but oh, no, you can't because of some unrelated conflict between editors. To my mind, Lebanon is somewhat closer to the line than Jordan, but it's still not over it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And imagine the same if United States was ECP'd and put under WP:1RR. It certainly has played a significant part in the conflict. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support removing ECP from Lebanon, per my comments above. It does make me slightly nervous, for the reasons stated above; to the extent that these articles do touch on the Arab-Israeli conflict, excluding them from the "reasonably construed" language means that non-EC editors are allowed to edit them - the general prohibition applies to pages, not edits. Nonetheless, I think these countries are outside the "reasonably construed" standard (but within the "broadly construed" test). GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • GoldenRing (you're getting all the pings from me this morning!) I'd agree. As I mentioned above, I am opposed to blanket removal of this from all countries (Israel and the State of Palestine are most certainly covered by these in my view), but most of the other Arab countries probably aren't. The two right now that appear to be ECP are Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. I decided to test consensus generally with Lebanon first, and if this is removed, I'll likely talk to the protecting admin about the Saudi article. I think this needs to be a case by case thing, but having gone through the Middle East, I think currently only having two national entities fall under the committee imposed sanctions makes sense, but also realize this could change in the future (i.e. if a hot war between Lebanon and Israel emerges, etc.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Iran is also under the restriction for some reason Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I’ll talk to the protecting admin about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Not completely related to this topic, but I think it's not the best practice and against protection principles to pre-emptively apply page protections on pages with no recent history of disruption simply because the page may fall into the scope of "broadly defined" of an arbitration decision. Alex Shih (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This isn't the Lebanese-Israeli conflict; these is the Arab-Israeli conflict, and unless you're going to argue that all Arabic countries are involved (including Morocco, Oman, and Sudan), you can't say that Lebanon is necessarily involved. There's no history of all Lebanon being especially closely involved (this isn't the Palestinian Authority), any more than Jordan or Egypt. Sanctions could reasonably be placed on articles about southern Lebanon, e.g. the area occupied by Israel for some years there, but not the whole country. Protection can always be put back if disruption resume. And also, support per NeilN; I can't imagine someone seriously asking that the United States be included in this. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• This probably should be closed.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please can any admin take a peek at this. Cheers, Mahveotm (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

On it. Fish+Karate 09:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

All done. Fish+Karate 09:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Controversial renaming of Orthodox cross without WP:RM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

Could you please revert the renaming of Russian Orthodox cross to Orthodox cross [55]? It was done without WP:RM contrary the results of the discussian[56]. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Restored to stablr title and move protected. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Did something go wrong with moving the talk page? Compare the revision histories of Talk:Russian Orthodox cross, Talk:Orthodox cross, and User talk:W/Russian Orthodox cross. 134.223.230.152 (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. The contested move didn’t move the talk for some reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I only learned this recently: if you try to move a page with a talkpage over another one which also has an existing talkpage, it will move/delete the main page properly but won't do anything to the talkpages. ansh666 18:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. You have to G6 it first. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Influx of socks making user pages in the spaces of non-existent users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So far I have done 3 moves of such pages today? Is this a specific LTA or just the NPP queue being weird? thanks ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: Can you link them? I'll take a look. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13 User:Neeraj2monu/sandboxip, User:Ephraim Kagwa/sandbox2, and User:Xb dk/Princess Loren. Those are all the post move links. Thanks, ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

They're all blocked, with two of them blocked as CU blocks, so I'm not going to bother looking into it. Almost certainly an LTA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

L3X1, do you mind if I delete Neeraj2monu and Ephraim? You moved them (that's a significant contribution), so I shouldn't G5 delete them immediately. If you're happy with deletion, I can treat them as basically a G5-and-G7 combo and hit the delete button. Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend I have no issue with deletion. Thanks, ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Done by someone else in the 10 hours since I was last here. As I see it, the "not edited by someone other than the creator" for G5 means that someone other than the creator can object, so if you waive that, I can delete away, just as if two people edit a page and then they both want a G7. WP:BURO, the point of "only edited by the creator" is respecting editors' wishes, not mandating XFDs of now-unwanted pages with multiple editors. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Standard offer appeal by User:Carthage44

Copied from user's talkpage:

I am asking for this unblock request as I was advised to post this no earlier than 12 June 2018. I have not created any accounts and have not edited on wikipedia for 6 months. You can read my posts above on my talk page about the many reasons that I hope that I can get a fresh start. I just want to prove to everyone (and myself) that I have changed for the better. I would really love to get back to making meaningful edits to the site. Thank you all! Carthage44

Checkuser reveals no other edits from the IP from which the appeal was made, other contributions are too old to check. Last identified sockpuppets were from December 2017; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carthage44/Archive for full details. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose an unblock under the standard offer at this time. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have CU tools but providing Yunshui has done all the checks available to them and under the condition that any further socking or other incidents may lead without warning to another indef and possibly a community site ban, I will not stand in the way of an unblock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I generally am in favor of granting WP:LASTCHANCEs, figuring the worst that can happen is a user gets indefed again. However, this user is either the worst victim of circumstantial evidence or (more likely) just cannot be trusted. I'm opposing due to continued socking:
  1. 2600:1008:B12F:BD41:3D27:3C6C:3C9B:79C9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits the same files that Carthage44's socks have historically edited. More telling is Carthage44's habit of undoing multiple edits one by one only to restore the changes while making additional modifications. The IP does the same at Alex Hornibrook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), undoing 2 consecutive edits on 31 Dec 2017 at 13:47 [57][58] then restoring those edits with additional changes at 13:55. Editors usually just make whatever changes are needed directly without needing to undo the previous edits first. This behavior has antagonized other editors in the past, including one editor who commented in an edit summary Please do not undo peoples edits just to re-do them minutes later like I just did. It messes up the edit history. Whether it is in 1 edit or multiple, the changes are made. Leave them please, nobody owns this page.[59]
  2. The IPv6 range 2601:240:4100:9cdc::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had already been blocked on 6 Dec 2017 as a sock of Carthage44. However, 2601:240:4100:9CDC:4DB0:EDA8:95D3:7714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is in the same range, edited similar basketball pages on 20 Feb 2018.
  3. 50.77.171.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked 3 times from 2014 to 2015 as a Carthage44 sock. The IP had been idle since 2016, but started editing again since 20 January 2018 in similar college football and basketball pages, including pages of one of Cathage44's oft-edited topics, the Wisconsin Badgers.
  4. Finally, I had given the benefit of the doubt at Cathage44's last unblock request in December 2017, when they wrote: I think if I get a second chance, I can show everyone that I have changed/matured into a upstanding citizen and worthy member of Wikipedia. I have children now and always want to sent a good example for them. That is what am doing now as a father and I think some of those same rules apply when using this site.[60] Given the apparent continued socking and misinformation, I think it's relevant to consider their unblock request from 2014, when one of their socks wrote: Wikipedia is a big part of my life and with my condition I don't know how much longer I will have to contribute on this site. I have learned my lesson from my previous block and would like to contribute in more positive way to this site during the short amount of time that I have left.[61] I do hope they have recovered; however, I also don't know what to believe in this case anymore.—Bagumba (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per my standard that editors requesting the standard offer should prove to us what we would gain by unblocking, not us having to prove what we would lose. This hasn’t been met, so I oppose. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional Support based on Bagumba's comment, I think the best way to handle this is to unblock, but with a 6 month TBAN from articles about college sports or current college athletes (that expires without requiring any appeal) and an indef one-account restriction. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Power~enwiki: What do you believe a TBAN would achieve if they are already violating an indef block?—Bagumba (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:ROPE and/or an path towards contributing constructively. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
      • ROPE is overused as a reason to unblock. It is actually pretty hard to reblock disruptive editors who were just unblocked but aren’t being disruptive enough to be worth the appeal. It’s still a net negative to the project. We know they’ve been disruptive in the past and we have no reason to believe they won’t be going forward. They’ve given us no indication of how they positively want to contribute to the project. The negatives outweigh the positives. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I thought it was pretty obvious they want to make edits to University of Wisconsin sports articles based on current events. As they seem to be doing that despite their block, I think the best way to get them out of having sanctions is to unblock them and to enforce the standard 6-month waiting period as a TBAN. If they have problems with edit-warring, being incivil to other editors, or being unwilling to follow the TBAN, they should be re-blocked. If not, they can contribute to the articles they've shown a long-term interest in. It's obviously un-orthodox, but I don't think the standard approach is working here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Sounds like the strong potential to waste of community time for little benefit. Socks are easy to deal with. Disruptive community members are not. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional support Carthage44's contributions to sports related articles were not considered problematic, based on their talk page history. Rather it was their habit of reverting and edit warring. To that end, I would suggest that, instead of a TBAN, an indefinite 0RR restriction be placed on them with no appeal earlier than 6months from an unblock. And a 1 account restriction as well, of course. Blackmane (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Assuming Carthage44's edit warring habits are over (big assumption), their biggest remaining negative is their penchant to undo others edits one by one, only to restore said edits themselves with some added changes. They have never acknowledged this as a problem, and this habit persists in their latest sock edits even after I again brought it to their attention in their prior unblock request. I am not seeing how a TBAN or 0RR encourages them to stop this behavior while logged out. The only benefit is that they get back this username for which they have a strong affinity. I still do not see the benefit to the rest of the community.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Would a manual undo of another editor's edit not be a revert, irrespective of whether they then re-add the material, albeit with small changes? Blackmane (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson disruptive editing in AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ever since User:Andrew Davidson was placed on notice last year, he didn't change his ways and continued with a pattern of editing that is clearly disruptive. He has voted "keep" on a large number of AfDs of fictional elements without merit [62] [63], clearly he understands notability criteria but continues to waste vast amounts of editors' time arguing with him and sway deletion discussions in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines. I don't recall a single time he actually voted "Delete", indicating that he is deliberately trolling. He also deletes PRODs with no reason given, forcing them to go to AfD. If he is a "keepist", he certainly hasn't demonstrated any legitimate, valid reasons why articles should be kept._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• When Zxcvbnm talks of being "placed on notice", he's referring to RfA. But his complaint now is about deletion discussions, which is quite a different matter. It seems that we differ in our opinion of the topics that he is nominating but that's why we have AfD -- to discuss and resolve such differences. Zxcvbnm's idea seems to be that he should be able to delete things without any debate. This is not our policy. The first case given as an example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster. There was no consensus to delete in that case and the keep !votes outnumbered the deletes. This is the process working as it is supposed to. Andrew D. (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'm no inclusionist, and there's nothing here. The two diffs provided aren't at all concerning, and if that's the worst in the past 5 months this can be closed quickly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with power. Those two keep comments are very reasonable, and the previous discussion was about a whole different issue. ansh666 20:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see any evidence of disruptive editing at all here. The ANI you linked to was about Andrew's participation in RfA, not AfD, and there was no consensus on whether even that was disruptive. !Voting keep in AfDs is by no means disruptive, and if his arguments are really without merit then they can be easily dismissed by the closing admin. Other editors are not obligated to "argue" with him if they disagree. WP:PROD explicitly states that anyone may object and that giving a reason is not mandatory. Your implication that being a firm inclusionist is automatically "trolling" is frankly ridiculous. Preserving content is policy and many editors chose to limit their participation in AfD to saving articles from deletion. – Joe (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• I am indeed usually looking for topics to save but, for the record, note that I sometimes !vote the other way. For a recent example, see Criticisms_of_medicine. Andrew D. (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on article deletion, broadly construed (changed from "AFDs" since much of the recent disruption has been at deletion-related discussion fora rather than the AFDs themselves) This has been a long time coming. This user (including his sock account Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)) has spent years showing up on AFDs of articles in niche academic fields like Japanese poetry, literary theory, classical mythology Asuka-Nara period Japanese history, Sikhism, comparative mythology, everyday Japanese vocabulary which he laughably presented as Buddhist philosophy, and so on, invariably pretending to be familiar with the scholarly literature, with the goal of preventing the articles from being deleted/redirected. This is highly disruptive because AFD closers are not topic specialists, and cannot tell if he is just listing off a bunch of Google hits or has actually familiarized himself with the topic. When challenged by editors who do know what they're talking about, he either doesn't retract his original discredited comments and simply stays the hell away from the discussion, or doubles down and argues endlessly, both of which facilitate his desired "no consensus, default to keep" result. In many of these cases he argues for the preservation of POV-fork articles that are meant to push fringe theories, but he frequently insists that they are not fringe theories, based purely on his Google searches. In one instance he made an argument that essentially amounted to a certain Pokemon character getting a standalone article based on its in-game stats -- he likely didn't know that that was what he was saying, which is why it's so annoying when he makes such poorly-researched arguments. Sometimes he doesn't get what he wants, as in the recent "Dark Lady" and "General Caste" cases, but that doesn't make his overall pattern of behaviour any less disruptive. He has been sanctioned for this behaviour in the recent past, specifically User:Bishonen placing a de facto TBAN on him from editing "Indian castes"-related topics outside his own user space, but not all of the areas in which he has been disruptive are subject to discretionary sanctions. Apart from this, he also has a nasty habit of violating the established consensus that AFD is the proper community venue to discuss "redirecting, not merging" and attempting to shut down AFDs with "the nominator has not considered the alternatives to deletion". Enough is enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Using AfD for redirecting is not "established consensus", as you well know. – Joe (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh please...replied at the discussion. ansh666 07:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: My understanding, based on reading the 2014 and 2018 discussions, is that "AFD is not for redirecting" is an idiosyncratic view held by a very small number of editors including both you and Andrew, while the majority of editors who care about such things hold the opposite view, and this view is the one that has always been supported by the majority of AFD closures. Anyway, it's fairly inconsequential to my argument (you've admitted to doing the same thing as Andrew with regard to that problem and I'm not suggesting you be topic-banned): would you like me to strike that part of my post? I'm not going to do it proactively since I do not accept that it is wrong, but I don't want to invite opposition based on such a peripheral point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Strike as you like. That was simply the most egregiously-wrong statement in a comment consisting almost entirely of bad-faith assumptions about Andrew's participation in AfD. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Bad-faith assumptions? Did you click on any of the links? Are you a Nara historian and now telling me that Nishidani and I didn't know what we were talking about and Andrew was completely right? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I did, and I think Andrew is far from the only editor who participates in AfDs on subjects in which he is not an "expert". I've yet to see evidence of him claiming to be one, though. Searching for sources is what we're all supposed to be doing at AfD and it doesn't require pre-existing expertise. Disagreeing with you is not disruptive. – Joe (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Arguing with editors who clearly know what they are talking about over the correct reading of the scholarly sources in question (and over whether popular/nationalist/whatever sources are even reliable) is a clear claim to holding an awareness he doesn't hold. This assertion is also supported by the fact that non-specialists who make good-faith AFD comments generally agree with what the more specialized editors say (as I did in the "General Caste" AFD); Andrew only appears to agree wih such editors when they !vote keep. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

He has certainly caused problems with India-related content at AfD because of his utter inability to understand Indian society and his insistence, nonetheless, that he does know what he is talking about. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I think I said this to you elsewhere, but he can be TBANned from India-related topics, or even just India-related AFDs, Japanese ones, Korean ones ("Korean influence", linked above, and Young Pioneer Tours), Chinese ones (same as Korean, since honestly a lot of the problem with the Korean influence article was its referring to "Chinese influence by way of Paekche" as "Korean influence"), etc., but the core problem is Andrew's insistence that he knows what he is talking about when these pages come to AFD -- the topics don't matter, and the TBANs would just keep piling up unless the root cause is addressed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrew is one of our most shcolarly editors, but never claims to be an expert AFAIK. Like other editors, the Colonel's views are given weight as they typically accord with policy and with reliable sources. We're not a project where much weight is given to claims of expertise. Still, there is some validity to your point on the Colonel acting with confidence in a great many areas. The Colonel would be too modest to claim this himself, but he is in fact an extortionary scholar, possibly almost a Polymath. It's been my privilege to meet with the Colonel face to face on several occasions; he is articulate and knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects, without needing to consult any form of reference, including a few in my specialist areas. There's an easy way for you to verify this yourself, next time you find yourself in London. The Colonel frequently attends real life Wikipedia events, such as those to encourage and assist newbies in getting involved with editing. He is a very friendly and approachable person, and I'm sure if you were to meet him in RL and see how knowledgably he can talk about any number of subjects from the top of his head, then it should set your concerns at rest. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrew is one of our most shcolarly editors, but never claims to be an expert AFAIK. So ... you didn't look at any of the evidence. Or maybe you looked at it and completely misunderstood it, which underlines my original point -- "AFD closers are not topic specialists", and their (and your) eyes glaze over when looking back and forths like the one between Nish and Andrew at "Korean influence" and just say "screw it; no consensus". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is incorect on all counts. My view on Andrew's exceptional scholarship is based on having known him for 10 years. As mentioned, this includes having met in RL when I've heard him give in depth answers to difficult questions without needing to look things up online, a good indication of real expertise. Even the very best makes mistakes, limited evidence that the Colonel occasionally makes incorrect statements would not invalidate my view, which I suspect is based on more extensive dealing with the Colonel than your good self.

To be fair, I'm not sure your evidence is as convincing as you think - in fact some of your own links show that even Andrews opponents recognise his scholarship. I agree with you that East Asian culture can be very challenging for an outsider to understand, especially if they lack relevant languages. What you perhaps don't realise is that the Colonel too has some close ties to the region. You're clearly a very smart editor, who while not ethnically Japanese, does have a good command of the language. But that doesn't mean you're always going to have a better grasp of complex inter cultural issues, where even elite professors sometimes disagree. To be more specific, I see in Korean & Japanese related AfD you linked, another editor living in Japan (強斗武 ) also questions your views on the matter. Looking at the back and forth you mention between the Colonel and Nish, I see Nish said: "Andrew. I'll address you becausee you have the professional competence as a librarian to assess things like this". FeydHuxtable (talk)

• Hey, wow! If Andrew is finally TBAN'ned for this stuff, I'll die laughing. Anyway, time to close this discussion, archive this and move on. Like a famous editor recently said, "No foul, play on!" Lourdes 07:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Did you look at the evidence? Regardless of any mistakes the OP made (and I really wish they had consulted with me beforehand...) the disruption is there, and it's ongoing, and it needs to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson has not done anything wrong. Moreover, he has no case to answer. James500 (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@James500: Did you look at the evidence? Regardless of any mistakes the OP made (and I really wish they had consulted with me beforehand...) the disruption is there, and it's ongoing, and it needs to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Lourdes and James. No case to answer at all. If anything, Andrews concise AfD contributions, typically well founded in policy &/or relieable sources, are a good model for other editors to follow. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: Did you look at the evidence? Regardless of any mistakes the OP made (and I really wish they had consulted with me beforehand...) the disruption is there, and it's ongoing, and it needs to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've got to say that this discussion makes me feel like Hijiri 88 (who I generally regard as a reasonable editor) and Zxcvbnm (who I don't know) are on a rather self-destructive warpath. I just looked at one example from Hijiri, Mottainai, and yeah, it turns out Andrew is right. [64] discusses the relationship between the idea of Mottainai and Buddisum. As do sources such as NPR ([65]. To call that "laughable" is frankly wrong. I'm tempted to push for a one-way interaction ban here. (And for the record, I make no claim to be an expert on any of that, merely that there are plenty of sources which claim that the Japanese concept of "Mottainai" is an ancient Buddhist term (taken from the NPR article)). Hobit (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hobit: Did you read the entire talk page discussion, including the part where he refused to answer the question as to whether he was able to read the sources? Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Japanese grammar knows mottai nai (classical form mottai nashi, kinda-sorta negative of mottai ari) cannot be the name of a Buddhist concept referring to the innate value of things; it is used as an adjective with the negative meaning of "wasteful". I asked him on his talk page if he had checked the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism or similar works, and he also ignored that question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I had not, now I have. I stand by my statement that Andrew's contributions were reasonable. I disagree with his oppose on the new wording for all kinds of reasons (mostly because the new wording seems better to me) but other than that he seemed quite reasonable and sourced his arguments better than anyone else in that discussion. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW, in case it isn't clear from the above, I think Zxcvbnm totally dropped the ball on this one. I was planning on preparing a bulleted list of grievances supported by clear diffs once I got some other stuff out of the way; I would have pushed it forward if Zxcvbnm had come to me and said this was going ahead, or even if he had posted an advance warning on Andrew's talk page, but instead only became aware of it after the fact, and after a bunch of people had already said this should be closed with no action because of the OP's clumsy mistake, so I was left with either (a) leaving this thread alone and letting it get closed with an "Andrew is innocent" consensus, forcing me to wait until all memory of it had faded before filing my own report lest I deal with a "this again", or (b) present my own evidence in the form of a single, subjective-looking (though really not subjective -- Sitush and I aren't "friends" outside of us both being Wikipedia editors) argument and a list of pagelinks, without the diffs (which would require a lot of time to gather, and that's time I don't have at the moment), so that at least the thread will be closed as "no consensus" and can't be cited as precedent. I went with (b), partly or real-world reasons I'm not comfortable elaborating on here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Here's an illustration of the problem - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbie Hutty. Andrew voted "Speedy keep" which is incorrect per Wikipedia:SKCRIT as the nominator Carrite was not acting in bad faith. I went and fixed up the article and got it cleared through DYK, then !voted "keep", Andrew meanwhile badgered the nominator to the extent I got annoyed enough to say "It's a shame the first couple of editors couldn't have done this instead of accusing you of bad faith and throwing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS excuses at you". So it's not what Andrew has done (saving articles from deletion is one of the best things we can do around here), but the way in which he has gone about it, where he turns the conversation into an argument, rather than persuading the other party that his viewpoint is the right thing to do. This runs the risk of articles being deleted because other editors start to think his views are worthless. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Going through most of what was written above, I am left with two different impressions: 1) Andrew is sometimes too quick to try and keep articles at AFD, making mistakes such as the one Ritchie333 points out above, which will ultimately hurt his cause. 2) Hijiri88 appears to have serious beef with Andrew and in his tries to paint Andrew in a negative light (which does include calling a legitimate and declared alternate account "sock") will hurt his cause as well. Because citing a number of AFDs in which Andrew had a different opinion and that did not end in delete does lead credence to Andrew's claims that WP:ATD was violated. Despite Hijiri88's further comments, I fail to see a really subtantial problem. A reminder to Andrew not to !vote keep without good reason and to avoid "speedy keep" !votes when WP:SK is not met should be sufficient. On a side note, AFD closers do not have to be topic specialists. Their job is to assess consensus, not decide themselves whether something is right or wrong. Regards SoWhy 12:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, if I ask "hey, have you and I interacted before", and he dodges the question, and I notice by accident later that I had interacted with another account of his not mentioned anywhere on his user page ... well, that might just be general IDHT. I coulda sworn when I first noticed that they were the same person I checked the history and found that he had largely abandoned his original CW account after the two were "outed" as both being operated by him -- it has barely edited since 2013. Essentially he was engaged in disruptive, undisclosed sockpuppetry for a while, until someone noticed, at which point he abandoned his original account. But I may have misread or misremembered something, in which case I apologize.

Everything else I said about his disruptively claiming to know what he's talking about when he clearly doesn't stands. Your last two sentences show you completely missed the point of my argument: AFD closers don't have to be topic specialists, which is why it is extremely disruptive when editors who have not read any of the literature start claiming they have, in a manner that will cause anyone who is not a topic specialist to just throw their hands up and say "no consensus". If the closer just happened to be a topic specialist, they would read through the discussion and realize that one side (Andrew and all the "per Andrew" !votes) clearly had no idea what they were talking about; but most closers aren't topic specialists, wherein lies the problem.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was this that I noticed a little while back and drew the "he was forced disclose it after someone noticed him socking and he thought he couldn't get away with it anymore". I'm not sure when the actual answer came; the fact that CW's user page does currently disclose the fact implies he did choose to disclose it at some point, but it still is not cool when you ask someone "Hey, have you and I interacted before?" and they don't tell you "Yeah, I was using this other account back in 2012 see..."; MPants and I first interacted when I was editing while logged out, he was confused when I acted like we had interacted before, and when I realized what was going on I was totally open about it, which is how good-faith interactions of that kind should go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no actual rule that forces editors to disclose their alternative accounts as long as they are not used "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt", is there? It's certainly not "cool" to act this way but if you focus on improper but not forbidden behavior, you risk muddying the water for claims of improper and forbidden behavior. Which brings me to the other comment: As long as there is no rule that only people who are topic specialists are allowed to participate in AFDs, there seems to exist no actionable offense if Andrew participates and makes lay-man arguments. Or did he claim to be an expert when he wasn't? Regards SoWhy 13:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of the AfDs, I'll tell you what really irritates me (and I know it does a lot of others as well) - removing PROD tags from completely unsourced articles without any reasoning being given. That's simply disruptive. Fair enough if the article is not obviously problematic, but when it has no sources and no obvious notability, you're wasting other people's time. I think it's time we had a look at changing "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to ... explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion" to make it compulsory ... it would stop this problem on the spot. Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a change I would support, a couple other people also use that loophole in the PROD policy (one of them just got banned, see above). I haven't had too many interactions with Andrew, but one that I did have was when he mass-deproded articles that I had nominated. After, I went to his talk page to ask him why he did that, he started WP:WIKILAWYERING and basically told me he didn't have to explain himself. I would also support topic-banning Andrew from PROD (but not necessarily AfD). As for this current complaint, I don't see enough evidence that he did anything wrong though.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support the change, but I would prefer if PROD was simply abandoned for the sake of consistency (excepting BLPPROD which has better requirements) If you have to craft a rationale for deletion in a PROD request, you might as well do it at AfD for wider input and have the result be binding. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• (double edit conflict)I agree with you on that Black Kite. If there are no valid references. In cases like this [66], you have a fictional character that could've just been redirected to the main article, the only reference is to the comic book they are in. But you can't punish someone for following the rules. Start a discussion in the right area to change the wording, and I'll support it. Dream Focus

• ZXCVBNM is upset that two articles they nominated for deletion had someone disagreeing with them, and of course Hijiri88 argues regularly with Andrew D. at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list, in AFDs listed there, and on its talk page. I notice in the example given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster Hijiri 88 complains about Mottainai, Korean influence on Japanese culture, and Tanka prose, just as he mentions them above and elsewhere. Wanting to ban someone from AFDs for disagreeing with you, is rather ridiculous. Now if an editor was constantly refusing to stay on topic during AFD but instead insulted other editors or their wikiproject, that'd be a valid reason to keep them from participating in future AFDs. But I don't see as how Andrew D. has done anything wrong here. Dream Focus 13:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• I suggest closing this. It's likely to be more heat than light. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock assist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all, can someone assist me with doing a range block, please?

• 103.252.25.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - (newest)
• 103.252.25.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.252.25.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These appear to be the same guy. He's submitting a lot of hoax content. With the most recent IP (*.53), we get edits like this, which at first looks like regular unsourced content, but some of it, like "Dusshera 2017 On Navratris" is just gibberish. Same with this, where we get "The Grihapravesh Pooja At 25th March 2018" and "Also Producer with Sunny Deol And The Producer Films With Dharmendra in Ghayal Once Again." Even if these were sourced, we have serious competency problems, but as we look deeper and see a pattern: this one is also weird, "Star Gold Mumbai Special 6: The Cycle Competition 3 At Wankhede Stadium And The Wonder Of Verma 3D" and no Google hits exist for "The Attacker: Wonder Target" submitted here. Clearly hoax content and we need to stop him. He's been at this for a few weeks. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Without commenting on the quality of the edits, it looks like 103.252.25.32/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is the range you're after. For some reason edits don't go back earlier than 25 May 2018 so if that's the block you want then it probably shouldn't be too long. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you zzuuzz. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potentially untagged misspellings report

Hi! Potentially untagged misspellings (configuration) is a newish database report that lists potentially untagged misspellings. For example, Angolan War of Independance is currently not tagged with {{R from misspelling}} and it should be.

Any and all help evaluating and tagging these potential misspellings is welcome. Once these redirects are appropriately identified and categorized, other database reports such as Linked misspellings (configuration) can then highlight instances where we are currently linking to these misspellings, so that the misspellings can be fixed.

This report has some false positives and the list of misspelling pairs needs a lot of expansion. If you have additional pairs that we should be scanning for or you have other feedback about this report, that is also welcome. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a snowball close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ujjawal Krishnam, please?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

And preferably also a salting of the article title since it with 100% probability will be recreated. Based on edits and discussion at AfD it's a self-promotional article by an undergraduate in India who tries to pass himself off as a notable scientist and writer, and where the creator/subject of the article has been indeffed for legal threats and is now actively trying to promote himself by using socks (Special:Contributions/Volume345) to add his name to various articles here ([67], [68], [69]). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Awokerices&oldid=846728143

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ElectronPdf&page=User+talk%3AAwokerices&action=show-download-screen

(Modsgipsy (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concentration Camps in the United States

There is a bit of a brewing edit war over at List of concentration and internment camps, where several editors are attempting to add an entry under the United States for the forced separation of non-citizen children from their parents. It's not a full-blown incident just yet, but it's already garnered some media attention (as with this article), so it may be worth watchlisting. An RFC might not go amiss, for that matter. The proposed section, while well sourced, is obviously going to be controversial, however justified its inclusion. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that this topic quickly be brought under the umbrella of discretionary sanctions for topics related to contemporary US politics. This is an extremely hot-button issue right now and has people across the political spectrum agitated. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why the participants can't be DS alerted for post-1932 US politics, indeed. I would guess that would clean up the problem a bit. --Izno (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say the content in question undeniably falls under that decision. The issue I’m seeing is the wording of {{American politics AE}}, which makes it sound as though ti would apply to any edit to the page, when this is a worldwide list. I don’t doubt the entire page would benefit from such restrictions but currently it isn’t authorized to spread beyond American politics. A customized template for these situations may be in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually upon a closer read it is pretty clear. I’m going to go ahead and apply it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Notice added to talk page and edit notice created, logged at WP:DSLOG/2018. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia 2: Motion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Macedonia 2: Motion

Topic Ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been informed on my talk page that a BLP topic ban currently affects me. I wish to have it lifted. I'm devastated that weeks of incredibly hard work were wiped on this formality. Iistal (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I note an open ANI thread entitled "Iistal" on this subject; the assembled editors can read my opinion on this topic there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Iistal gives no explanation as to why the project would benefit from the topic ban being lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This editor received an indefinite topic ban regarding BLPs less than two years ago. The topic ban is not a "formality", but rather a restriction that must be followed. This editor has a long history of edit warring, sock puppetry and repeatedly denied unblock requests. This user specializes in gossip about celebrity's romantic relationships. I see no benefit to the encyclopedia in allowing this editor to edit regarding living people in any way, shape or form. The topic ban should be strengthened and clarified, rather than lifted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen. Blackmane (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Would the closing administrator please also clarify that the next request for lifting this TBAN should not be made before the end of 12 months from the date of this discussion closing? Thanks, Lourdes 07:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose --Tarage (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen and Beyond My Ken. –Davey2010^Talk 12:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, listal is almost inevitably going to be indefinitely banned soon anyway, they don't seem to understand what they did wrong last time and why they ended up with a topic ban in the first place. Fish+Karate 14:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indefinite Topic Ban Explanation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't believe it's fair for the topic ban to not be able to be appealed for another 6 months. I was unaware of the topic ban and 2 admins assumed good faith [70]. The edits I made in the past few weeks (after no editing for 10 months) were all good or mostly good edits. I think that when someone has devoted countless hours to improving an article (researching, source gathering, proofreading), if another editor then objects to the changes, that editor should make modifications rather than obliterate all of the valuable content and revert the article to poor condition. There are many recent examples of this done by NinjaRobotPirate and Yamla, except they weren't doing it out of interest for the articles. They were just going through my edit history and reverting everything one by one.

I don't like ambiguity, discrepancies or inaccuracies. Articles with these flaws tend to have a low volume of editing activity. I edit articles that need improvement and that no one else is willing to put the necessary effort into. Effort needs to put into them because these days, mainstream media uses Wikipedia as their source of information. Access Hollywood has repeated sentences word for word from Wiki. So, by reverting articles to poor condition, you're indirectly purporting falsity.

The editor who pointed out the topic ban, NinjaRobotPirate, made blatantly false accusations on my talk page [71]. He wrote "you added unsourced gossip to a BLP" when in fact, the page he linked was not a BLP, and the edit he linked was not gossip at all, but a well known, neutral biographical fact. I replied to NinjaRobotPirate, explaining (in a polite tone) that what he'd just written on my talk page was wrong. NinjaRobotPirate refused to participate in the very discussion he started, and after ignoring my replies, he posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I can't say his initial post was a lie, because I don't know if the falsity of it was intentional, but his behavior fits the definition of harassment. It also fits the definition of passive-aggressive.

I waited a long time for the opportunity to edit again and have demonstrated diligence in my edits. Having followed the standard offer, an additional 6 month wait to appeal a topic ban that I didn't even know existed is unreasonable. I request that the topic ban be reconsidered. Iistal (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The block appeal that was accepted made no mention of a topic ban. Iistal's unblock request said "If unblocked, I intend to resume editing articles about movies, television and celebrities", a point which was not refuted or clarified by the unblocking admin. It's reasonable to assume that Iistal was unaware of an active topic ban. Bradv 04:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Iistal: One of the main reasons you were blocked was for disruptive editing in BLP, and only unblocked after you agreed to the topic ban ([72]). While the reviewing administrator should have checked in the previous unblock request, the previous unblock request was about your socking, and I find it troubling that you failed to mention about your topic ban in all of these unblock requests; it is troubling because reviewers try to assume good faith when going through unblock request queues, and given the editing history involved, I cannot help to not think this was deliberate omission. As for the "blatantly false accusations", unsourced relationship claim is gossip, and biographies of recently deceased persons are covered by BLP, see WP:BDP. Standard offer is an essay, not a policy nor requirement; the burden is on you to explain why your editing should be accepted, and without an editing activity that does not involve problematic editing/violation of topic ban, there is no way for the community to assess your situation. Alex Shih (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) Apologies NeilN, I was in the middle of typing this response and ran into edit conflict with your closure.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Crown Victoria Custom '51

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This appears to have been added moved to the category namespace by mistake in an attempt to correct a spelling error (see Crown Victora Custom '51 and Crown Victoria Custom '51) Does this require an admin to clean up? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The page has been moved to the creator's user sandbox by Hammersoft, so this appears to have been taken care of unless the redirects which were also created need to be cleaned up as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for closing the Simple English Wikipedia

There is currently a proposal on Meta for closing the Simple English Wikipedia at meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (3). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Bach editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For months, there has been one dispute after the other between two editors of classical music (mainly JS Bach), and the friction goes beyond standard disagreements into accusations of vandalism and off-wiki harm. The two editors involved are User:Francis Schonken and User:Mathsci. The latest longish discussion about this is at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Francis Schonken is edit-warring to remove your thread on Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142. Older discussions can e.g. be found at User talk:Mathsci#User talk:Francis Schonken and subsequent sections there.

By now, many editors have become involved in these disputes, and it has taken up many hours and led to blocks (both editors have quite a few blocks in their history). I have blocked Mathsci in the past and more recently, and I would prefer not to take any further admin actions here and to let clearly uninvolved admins deal with the two editors. Mathsci has serious health concerns, which causes longish gaps in their recent editing (no problem there), but which they (in my opinion) misuse as an excuse to put the blame on Francis Schonken too often.

Both editors are clearly knowledgeable about classical music, and a topic ban from such articles would be tough on both of them. But an interaction ban seems hardly feasible as they have so many articles where they have by now both spent considerable effort. Something creative is needed here (preferably more effective than Bach flower remedies :-) )

In my experience with these two editors in this dispute, they both are uncompromising and rather stubborn, but (perhaps due to some selection bias) I have the impression that the most problematic edits are by Mathsci. The above DYK was for an article originally created as a redirect by Francis Schonken, and only later edited by Mathsci: the DYK as well was first edited by FS and immediately afterwards by Mathsci.

The most recent interaction is at Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon, which has now been opened for more than 3 months. They are the two most prolific commenters there, and their first edit was less than 2 hours apart[73]. The article for that DYK, An Wasserflüssen Babylon, has been edited 156 times by Francis Schonken and 731 times by Mathsci.

Mathsci makes claims of vandalism way too often. I already mentioned this to him in the discussion on his talk page, but he simply continues, e.g. this edit summary and this one.

Mathsci seems to be following Francis Schonken around to completely unrelated articles; when FS edits the Auschwitz disambiguation page[74], Mathsci reverts the same day[75], even though they have never edited that page before. More back-and-forth at that page follows. When FS explains his change at the talk page, Mathsci gives a rambling response which addresses a lot of things but not really the actual edits. Mathsci not only left a rather condescending post on FS user talk page[76], but when FS removed this (as is his right), he restored[77] it with further commentary, even though I had already explained to Mathsci (when they did the same thing earlier) that a removed post should never be reposted.

That second post[78] then goes on to insult FS ("It was spelled out so that even a small child could understand it. That Francis Schonken went into edit-warring phase was predictible. At that stage he did not have a "minder" or "henchman" there to provide advice or back-up. ") and continues with rehashing some old history (an episode for which I blocked Mathsci as they were clearly in the wrong there, but which they still use to blame FS).

Another example: FS creates an article, which Mathsci then tag-bombs[79]. This includes completely inaccurate tags like "peacock", "one source", "primary sources", ... FS expands the article significantly, and removes the tags: Mathsci reverts this removal as being a "disruptive edit"[80] even though the tags are even less accurate now. FS again continues editing and expanding the article, and at the end again removes the tags. One month later, Mathsci readds the exact same tags yet again[81]. These are the only edits he ever made to this article or its talk page. This is either harassment or a case of WP:CIR, but not acceptable editing behaviour.

What clearly crosses the line and is a perfect example of the position Mathsci now takes is his edit summary of 19 May[82]: "in isolation of N11, saboteur/troll still active in disrupting my home IP, almost surely FS is the culprit given his petty and childish persona". This not only is a clear PA against FS, but also accuses him of somehow disrupting Mathsci's home IP. At the moment, everything FS says is interpreted in the worst possible way, and rather unreasonably so. The last posts on Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon (from 3 June and later) are typical for this.

I may well be painting a one-sided picture here, and would ask others to go over the interactions of the last few months and unravel the problems. But I don't think that letting this continue is in any way productive. Perhaps this is too complicated for AN and needs ArbCom, but I hope that the combined wisom of the AN crowd can find some solution which lets peace return. Fram (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest the section Francis Schonken's disruptive conduct is preventing content creation on Orgelbüchlein from ANI in June 2016 as lengthy but useful background reading. It will give a more rounded picture of this situation. MathSci was not the only recipient of his attentions, although his way of dealing with it has tended to be both extreme and counterproductive. Anyhow, Francis ended up with a community-imposed 6 month restriction to one revert per page in any calendar month, applying to all pages except his own user and user talk pages. Amongst the problems which surfaced at the June 2016 ANI, apart from repeated edit-warring, were weaponizing maintenance tags in content or personal disputes, massively refactoring other editors' talk page comments, and lots of I didn't hear that. Plus ça change? Voceditenore (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I dunno, perhaps the only solution is to WP:IAR and craft a solution that bars each of them from editing an article unless they were the first of the two edit it. Period. Make it apply to the talk page and to any related discussions about the page as well. There are more than enough classical music subjects to around. Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Your solution may well be the right one, but I'ld like to see some evidence that the problematic editing by FS has persisted more recently (preferably the last three months, but at least somewhere in 2018). If the problematic edits are still coming from both sides, then sanctioning both is best. If the problematic edits are no longer coming from both sides but only one side continues, then sanctioning that side may be better (or fairer). Fram (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:Fram has been told by arbitrators that I am currently gravely ill. There are still ongoing üdiscussion on arbitration on User talk:Newyorkbrad#Comment on Newyorkbrad and above. On 18–27 May in Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, I had the last of six related emergency incidents. These involved (a) major stroke (b) cardiology (c) blackouts (syncope) (d) acute kidney illness. I cannot possibly do anything here. I can hardly move. Mathsci (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• • You have used your illness as an excuse for months now. It didn't stop you following FS to the Auschwitz disambiguation and so on. I'm sorry that you are in such bad health, but then don't edit Wikipedia, and certainly don't edit anything controversial. The "ongoing discussion" at Newyorkbrad had one comment from you from early May, and the last before that was from 19 April. That's not an ongoing discussion, that's a stalled one you had to pull from the archives. You continued your disruption during and after that discussion. Fram (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• What do you mean by excuse? User:Newyorkbrad has explained the serious health problems and you seem to be treating that as if they don't exist. Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  If I had to guess, they would like you to respond to the merits above (in which they acknowledged your health issues, btw). Arkon (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• That is impossible at this time. The medication means I can only sleep every other night. From what I understand I still have acute kidney illness (AKI) and that is being looked into by my GP (on Thursday) and in the cadiology clinic next Monday (where there is a problem with ACE inhibitors). I am sorry, I cannot change that. User:Doug Weller is aware of the ongoing medical problems. User:Newyorkbrad is already organising this. User:Fram seems to be trying to stop that happening. What has been happening is some kind of low key arbitration case, supervised by Newyorkbrad, which will not endanger my health. Mathsci (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

What is a "low key arbitration case"? Is there a page for those? Just because an arbitrator makes a comment somewhere, it hardly counts as "arbitration". Nor do an arbitrator's comments outside ARBCOM carry any more weight than anyone else's. If what you're talking about is some "thing" carried out entirely off-wiki with only one of "combatants" participating... well... um... Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It means the ongoing discussion on arbitration that has been taking place for about two months on User talk:Newyorkbrad#Comment by Newyorkbrad and above. It was started by Softlavender, but she prefers not to be mentioned. Mathsci (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no "ongoing discussion about arbitration" (or organising of it) on Newyorkbrad's talk page. His last comment on the dispute there was almost two months ago, and his only mention of arbitration in that comment was "Unless the two of them find some way to disengage voluntarily, I fear there is no alternative but an impose remedy, whether via an ANI discussion or arbitration or otherwise". Really, Mathsci, for your own sake, and frankly everyone else's, you need to completely disengage from this dispute. Who knows? Some of the administrators and experienced editors here might actually come up with a solution. Just let them get on with it. Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The kind of major stroke I had, expressive dysphasia, have several effects. One thing is that, under stress, the damaged brain left hemisphere cannot be managed properly. That means I stop being to able to speak. That happened on the weekend of the emergency incident in Addenbrooke's Hospital when, in error, one of the gastrointestinal consultants suspended all of my medication. That resulted in what is called a hypertensive emergency. That has to be avoided, because the main risk is a second stroke, which usually is fatal. Fram has used the word "antics" to describe the mechanism of stroke. I have difficulty even remembering the word when stressed. Mathsci (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

if stress is bad for your health issues, perhaps the best thing is to avoid Wikipedia, because you seem unable to avoid conflict, and thus stress, while here. Following FS to the Auschwitz disambig page does not look like the actions of someone trying to avoid conflict and stress. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I sympathize with Mathsci's ongoing medical problems, which appear to be very serious, and sincerely hope that things get better for them, but it seems to me that if Mathsci can rally sufficiently to edit the encyclopedia, and describe in detail their medical situation, then Mathsci must also be able to participate in discussions about their editing. They cannot claim a free pass on discussions while continuing to edit. Either Mathsci needs to take a break from editing -- or avoid any and all controversial edits and restrict themselves to simple fixes and anti-vandalism -- or, if they continue to edit as normal, they must be willing to give over some of their limited editing time to discussions. To do otherwise is unfair to other editors and to the community in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have mentioned in the discussion on arbitration that at the moment I cannot concentrate properly. Unfortinately that is just a fact. At the moment I am staying in bed under medication, writing only total trivia that requires no concentration, more like gnoming (comments on Jayda Fransen for example). I think I mentioned that problem of lack of concentration on User talk:Newyorkbrad#Comment by Newyorkbrad. The method NYB chose gave a method of discussion which did not rush me. Before the emergency of 18–27 May, I slowly prepared a whole set of diffs describing my editing on Canonic Variations between January and March 2018: I prepared those slowly in the middle of May before the I was rushed into A&E. I can locate those in the framework NYB had devised, but not here: I am absolutely shattered. At the moment it would be impossible, because the colonoscopy and hypertensive emergency has stopped me thinking in any sustained way. Mathsci (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I should also say that folks like BMK, Softlavender, Doug Weller, Snowded, Ealdgyth, Diannaa, Bishonen, David Eppstein, MastCell, Regentspark, Voceditenore put me at ease as old regulars. Doug Weller in particular noticed the usual LTA (permabanned from WP:ARBR&I) making mischief recently (see e.g. Orgelbüchlein). Mathsci (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I could also watch, in a sedentary state, as the Memills saga unravelled: all history that BMK (or other wikifriends like Maunus, aprock, ArtifexMayhem, Johnuniq, Killlerchihuahua, etc) will remember from the days of Miradre/Acdemia Orientalis. So I can do superficial gossip, but not much more. Mathsci (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Fram has also not explained why from 28 April until now, Francis Schonken's editing suddenly switched to UNESCO World Heritage Infoboxes edits: en route, Francis Schonken seems to have needlessly ruffled the feathers of User:RexxS, User:Mike Peel, User:Andrewa and User:Beetstra. Similarly the main topic here was Lutheran hymns from the Reformation, not Bach as Fram has suggested. Mathsci (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice attempt to ping other editors who you feel have a negative view of FS. But it's not really clear why I should need to explain FS editing a topic completely unrelated to you. Perhaps, instead of going through FS' edits trying to find other editors who might support you, you could explain why you made the edits highlighted in my opening statement? Why you are following FS around, making personal attacks, accusing him of offwiki criminal (or at least unethical and very dubious) activities? These edits can hardly be explained by "but FS is suddenly editing unesco articles"... Fram (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• I propose that Mathsci is placed under a one-way IBAN with Francis Schonken, however, Mathsci is expressly permitted to ask Newyorkbrad or any editor he designates to act on their behalf in any disputes. If Mathsci is physically unable to edit Wikipedia, they should not do so, but that doesn't mean their voice should be silenced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• In the discussion on arbitration initiated by Newyorkbrad (see above), User:MastCell has already indicated that Francis Schonken's comments on my user talk page were "petty and childish." MastCell indicated that Francis Schonken is quite likely to be indefinitely blocked (If I understand his properly). I have a sleeping tablet fairly shortly. I can see that the peanut gallery want to have their fun. Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support IBAN as per BMK and Power - Mathsci I do hope you get better soon and or your situation improves, Anyway in short IBAN seems the only best solution here thus fart. –Davey2010^Talk 20:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

To follow up and clarify something stated above, I have been in contact with Mathsci occasionally in recent months. He has shared with me what at the time was private information concerning his health, although more recently he has shared this information publicly (frankly, I do not see that it is necessary to do so in such detail). He has also shared with me some other non-public information, but none that I can link with Frances Schonken. A couple of months ago, I expressed concern on-wiki that Frances Schonken and Mathsci were persistently giving each other an unnecessarily hard time (see Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142#Mathsci and Francis Schonken). Frances Schonken's initial response was to dispute how I had worded the section header, an issue I perceived as of relatively minor importance. My perception at the time was that Frances Schonken was unnecessarily following Mathsci's edits. As Mathsci notes above, there has subsequently been a thread on my talkpage in which I repeated my request that these two editors stay away from each other.

This thread opened by Fram suggests that problems between the editors are continuing, but I am not as persuaded as Fram is that the problems lie in one direction. Mathsci, although he has not led a blameless wikilife by any means, has been the subject of long-term harassment by banned users (nothing to do with Frances Schonken or with the music-topic areas), and as stated above suffers from health issues; that does not mean that he is free to violate any policies or guidelines, but I do hope he will be treated with an extra dose of courtesy and understanding. That being said, I am not commenting "as an arbitrator" in this thread, and I'm certainly not administering some sort of one-man secret arbitration case. I would be grateful if someone could please figure out how to keep these two editors away from each other, without damaging either of them or the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Since I've been pinged I've read through the above and will put in my two cents. Yes, I have had my feathers ruffled by FS on many occasions and I try to be Christian on this, see wp:creed#4, so I hope my feathers are not too easily ruffled. But that's a disclosure.

I would like to see even-handedness on this, and think that the squatters rights Tban proposed above [83] has a great deal of merit. The objective is not to punish either or both but simply to protect Wikipedia. Both sides have regularly transgressed wp:NPA Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.... and I see little hope of this changing while many admins set an appalling example by doing the same (but that's another hobbyhorse of mine). Both sides are powerfully here and their good faith is IMO unquestionable.

So ideally we want to give them both the best and most effective guidance that we can, to enable them to continue their valuable work unhindered by each other. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to note that such a "squatter's rights" sanction could easily be gamed. I won't say how, but I think anyone of reasonable intelligence can figure it out. Given that, I really don't think it's a viable solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. The devil is perhaps in the details, but part of the sanction would be that any attempt to game the system to avoid the Tban would be dealt with severely. (When I say "severely", probably the best response in that event would be to simply revoke the sanction on the innocent party while leaving it in place on the other.) They're both highly intelligent and would understand this if it were put in those or similar terms. For one of them to suddenly post trivial edits to many articles, for example, or even to otherwise modify their editing pattern so as to greatly increase the number of articles to which they had editing rights, would trigger this response. Or if one were to waste their time devising more sophisticated strategies to keep the gaming under the radar, problem solved. But neither is that stupid, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Francis Schonken has been the clear aggressor in this saga from the very beginning, and after original six-month editing restriction imposed at ANI in June 2016 [84], he went right back to persistent, long-term, deliberate targeting and harassing of Mathsci. Mathsci is not blameless, as he has some behavioral issues of his own, but FS is the aggressor and troublemaker. I do not support a 2-way interaction ban between these two editors. I Support a one-way interaction ban on Francis Schonken towards Mathsci. In my mind that is the only way this harassment and disruption is going to stop, short of an ArbCom case, which at this point is well warranted in my opinion (we've already been through at least two ANI threads). So I'm in favor of one or the other: a one-way IBan, or an ArbCom case. Softlavender (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've given evidence of clear, very recent cases where Mathsci is the aggressor. Can you please provide similar recent cases where FS is the aggressor? Otherwise you propose to sanction FS for old behaviour while ignoring the continuing unacceptable behaviour by Mathsci. Are there e.g. articles where FS clearly followed Mathsci, instead of the other way around, in the last 2 or 3 months (i.e. since you started that thread at Newyorkbrad's talk page)? Fram (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I am very much in agreement with Softlavender on all details, including several reports on AN/I and others. On 29 December 2017, Softlavender used the words "vendetta" and "harassment" to describe FS's patterns of edits.[85] (My stroke took place a few hours later while editing the same item.) I have edited during 2006–2018 and have covered a lot of different topics. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Mathsci, if you feel that FS is having a vendetta against you and is harassing you, then why are you following him again and again and again? Fram (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Fram, could you please stop putting words into my mouth? In my wikipedia edits I usually write in a restrained and nuanced way: my favourite words are "neutral and anodyne." Here I have quoted what Softlavender wrote, that is all. At this stage, I don't have any "feeling" about this at all. Indeed I just feel numbed. In the same way, I am aware that User:MastCell has written a number of comments on FS which I will simply report without interpretation. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • When you state "I am very much in agreement with Softlavender on all details", and then explicitly quotes their words "vendetta" and "harassment", then it is very strange to then complain that I am putting words in your mouth. Could you perhaps address your own recent edits instead of repeating what others said months ago? Fram (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I am an agreement with what Softlavender has written; her comments seem very sensible and she writes well. At the moment I'm trying to see whether my concentration is improving by reading Beverly Jerrold's 2012 article Kirnberger vs Marpurg: A reappraisal. Some of the material was already used in the reception section of Clavier-Übung III, but that was written earlier in 2010. Mathsci (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

And that is in any way relevant for this discussion because...? Fram (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Just before the incident on 18 May, I was editing Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon, trying to write a preparatory summary (including content on Jerrold). User:Gerda Arendt is the person who suggested that I help there: I had previously written Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes in 2008 or 2009. An Wasserflüssen Babylon, BWV 653, is one of the chorale preludes I play. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

So no actual relevance. This report is about your recent conduct towards FS (and vice versa, if any), not what sources you read to edit. Please address the accusations that you inappropriately follow them around, tag-bomb their articles, personally attack them and accuse them of fairly unlikely off-wiki behaviour. Fram (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The comments on 19, 24, 26 May were written when I was in the isolation ward N2. Not really the usual wikipedia environment and at times it was quite alarming (despite the Royal Wedding). In October 2012 at UCL, I edited The Heart Hospital prior to heart surgery (4 October) and then as an outpatient (16 October).

On various WP noticeboards, I have mentioned previously that online sources using CD liners, raw Bach archive content and 18th or 19th century sources are usually not good as WP:RS. My editing method is usually to gather the best available reliable secondary sources and then summarise them. The same applies to mathematics, e.g. Contraction (operator theory). List items could potentially give an excuse not to follow that procedure: then the best idea, if possible, is to make a proper article, instead of a list-cum-article. How many baroque articles have you edited or created? Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Mathsci, if you can't be bothered to address the actual issues, then please don't answer at all. You have added lots of replies here, but so far none of them have brought us any closer to solving this whole situation, but instead only add lots of distractions. How is the number of baroque articles I have edited in any way related to this complaint? Fram (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be a problem if you had hardly any experience of editing articles on baroque music. (On wikipedia, people usually write about what they know.) As far as I am aware, my edits on music have been accepted by almost all other editors, i.e. there is a long standing consensus. Looking at it in a different way, possibly taking into account Softlavender's comments, might there not be a problem with some of the edits of Francis Schonken? Mathsci (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

it would be a problem if we were discussing content issues, which we aren't. We are discussing conduct issues, specifically your recent conduct (no recent problematic conduct by FS has so far been presented). A topic you have avoided at all costs so far. Fram (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• You at no point write words in a restrained and nuanced way. You waffle, obfuscate, personally attack, try to divert from clear statements, avoid the point, write tldr walls of barely relevant (or even coherent) text, in fact do anything you can to weasel around your obstructive and deliberately frustrating attitude. When you write 'I agree with everything they said' it is not putting words into your mouth to say you feel they have a vendetta when that is entirely the subject of their comment. It's this sort of bullshit that has led to you being unable to work with editors on what, two topic areas previously? It's a familiar patten. Mathsci gets into conflict (usually because of your overwhelmingly arrogant and insulting editing towards others), blames everyone else, blames harrassment, tries to link it to past harrassment from unrelated people, vindictively targets others by means of personal attacks, hounding etc, blames illness for not participating when your disruptive editing is brought up. And ends up moving to a different topic when enough people have been pissed off only for the cycle to start again. If you seriously want to claim innocence in all this, an arbcom case will have plenty of evidence going back years showing the pattern of your interactions with others. It will be a long and gruelling process, and it will likely go ahead regardless of your personal situation because Wikipedia is not therapy and your illness is not an excuse to be trotted out every time your own nature causes you to get into conflict with others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• And before this goes much further, could an uninvolved admin read this previous discussion (plenty of further reading there as well RE their behaviour) which clearly shows their tactics when brought to a noticeboard, and swiftly hat any of Mathsci's off-topic comments to keep this on track. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's plain from the above that some of us sympathise more with Francis Schonken and some with Mathsci, and as I've disclosed I'm likely to be in the latter group. But this probably says more about us than about them. Again I recommend an even-handed approach as the best way of protecting Wikipedia. Justice may be in the eye of the beholder, but if we focus on why we are here that need not be an issue. Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The details

I think the time has come to actually do something!

So I'd like to further investigate the possibility of a creative squatters' rights Tban as suggested by Voceditenore above. [86]

Beyond My Ken has suggested that this could be easily gamed. I think I see what they mean, but as I replied [87] I think this can be addressed.

So I propose that we invite each to name two advocates, all four to be administrators. I will volunteer to be one for Mathsci. In doing so, I invite both of them to post anything that doesn't cross the line into oversight territory on my user talk page. Attack me, attack each other, attack the other advocates. email me if it might be oversightable! Just call what they see as problematical editing by the other to our attention, that's the important thing. (And keep it off the article talk pages.) And we'll look at it, and possibly discuss it among the panel of four, and issue stern warnings if it's anywhere near transgressing.

Because, if any three of the advocates agree that one of the combatants has transgressed the Tban, then the Tban will immediately revert to a simple community topic ban on Bach-related articles on the transgressor, and the other will be released from the Tban.

Mathsci doesn't have to nominate me as one of their advocates of course. (And if they don't then Francis Schonken is free to and I'd be very flattered to accept, but I don't think that's likely.) Both just need to find two advocates to be on this panel.

Comments? Other volunteers? Andrewa (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... in order to police this remedy - we'd need four admins to monitor two editors? Seems like a lot of work and not something that's normally done. Would this preclude other admins from taking action on these two editors? Frankly, I'm inclined to interaction ban the two of them and if this means that either of them can't edit an article or two, it seems much simpler than what is current or what is proposed here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Ealgyth's got it right. There's really no need for a complexly structured sanction when a standard IBan would seem to be a feasible solution. At the very least, it should be tried before going to an esoteric sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Interaction bans have been tried with Mathsci before when he gets into conflict, he is uninterested in abiding by them. The last time resulted in him engaging in a particularly nasty form of outing/harrassment of the editor with which he was interaction banned. Frankly an interaction ban between him and FS is just asking for him (given his history of actions towards other editors) to resort to privacy-violating measures towards FS. Which wouldnt be unusual for him at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's please AGF of Mathsci, and take him at his word that he's not capable at this time of doing much complex editing, which would include, I think, following a convoluted sanction. He should, however, be capable of adhering to a simple, straightforward IBan with FS. If it turns out that that isn't the case, and he -- or Frances -- abuses the IBan, then a more complex sanction or even an indef block can follow, depending on the circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not a battered wife, I don't have to AGF of anyone who has repeatedly time and again shown they are a threat to other editors privacy. His word is worth absolutely nothing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with an Iban affecting both equally. The more creative solution would only be appropriate of we had three other admins volunteer (and so far we have none) and if both parties agreed to it (and neither has yet commented). Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

An IBan on both would probably be the best solution (I have my doubts if it will work, but it certainly is worth a shot). Fram (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrewa's proposal would be an even worse time-sink than the current situation. Both FS and Mathsci have tied up and frustrated numerous editors with their behaviour and now the proposal is to tie up 3 or 4 administrators as well? Speaking as a non-admin, but someone who has dealt with FS on multiple occasions (not all of them involving Mathsci), and crafted his 2016 1RR per month restriction, my view is that a. any IBAN must be mutual and b. a normal 2-way IBAN will not work unless it includes article space. The episode at the DYK nomination for An Wasserflüssen Babylon, which started the discussion here is a perfect microcosm of the problem:

• FS created An Wasserflüssen Babylon as a redirect in July 2017
• It lay dormant until 24 February 2018 when Gerda Arendt turned it into an article.
• FS shows up immediately and starts tag-bombing it until it looked like this. He has "form" doing this to Gerda in other articles, irrespective of Mathsci's participation. (See my comment in No details below.)
• By 3 March, Gerda had addressed the issues, removed the remaining tag and nominated it for DYK [88]. Note also the comments by an editor from the Guild of Copy Editors who had earlier removed most of FS's tag-bombing [89], [90].
• Mathsci starts expanding the article on 4 March after Gerda asked his help with it [91]. Francis then returns to editing the article on 6 March and the usual scenario plays out when they are editing the same article, tagging each others edits [92], [93] and soon repeatedly reverting each other. e.g. here: [94], [95], [96], [97] and here: [98]. The fighting later spilled onto a fork created by FS at An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken) with multitple reverts of each other by FS and Mathsci, and this time Mathsci doing the tag bombing. (I'm not going to bother with diffs. Just look at the edit history.)
• The DYK review did not start until 21 March. The following day, FS shows up at the review, opposing a pass on the grounds that it is "unstable" [99] and proceeds to re-festoon the article with tags [100].
• Needless to say the DYK review soon broke down into bickering between FS and MathSci—largely by Mathsci. By 6 May the initial reviewer had withdrawn from the melee. Mathsci went on to increasingly bizarre and totally unacceptable personal attacks on FS [101]. The DYK remains completely stalled as of today (7 June) and probably will never pass given that FS had also placed a tag suggesting a split on the top of the article [102], where it remains today after he and Mathsci repeatedly reverted each other over it.

Ugh! Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, my proposal will only work if we get at least another three admins to volunteer, and if we also get agreement from both parties. And there is no sign yet that either of these conditions will be met.

But I feel I must answer the question of a time sink. These four admins would be the only ones spending time on it. At present, all lurkers here (admin or not) are spending time on it. That time sink is exactly what I'm trying to reduce.

But the fascinating thing is, you seem to agree with my fundamental assumption that the solution should be even-handed. So, what's your solution? Do you really think that a simple IBan will be less of a time sink? My prediction is that we'll just be back here within a week, repeating much of the above discussion. I could be wrong, particularly about the timescale, but even if it takes a year it's still a time sink. But again to repeat myself, I'm happy to give it a go.

An IBan with some strict and explicit riders as to what constitutes a violation would stand more of a chance of getting their attention. But do we all want to be involved in setting those riders, and later policing them? My proposal essentially delegates all of this to the panel, to spell them out if and when necessary. And my prediction is that it will be necessary, but that when it happens (with at most four contributors needing to be involved) it will be effective, as the four will all have been accepted by the parties themselves. (I should have said, they need to both agree to all four nominations, I was just assuming that's part of the deal.) Again I could be wrong.

And I was hoping that the threat of an IBan would motivate them both to consider this proposal seriously. But here I do appear to be wrong, and repeating myself again, if that's the case there's no point in us even discussing the proposal further. It seemed like a good idea. But most good ideas don't work at all, and this appears to be one of those. It was worth a try. Andrewa (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrewa, I would propose a two-way IBAN to include article space, which bars each of them from editing an article unless they were the first of the two edit it (simple redirects do not count). Make it apply to the talk page and to any related discussions about the page as well. The behaviour of both editors, is equally poor, if not worse, on talk pages and merely exacerbates the conflict. You're right that this may well be too complicated or lengthy to work out here. On the other hand, I don't think you're going to find enough admins willing to take on your original proposal either. I have a feeling that if FS and Mathsci do not come to their senses voluntarily, the only remaining option is ARBCOM. Too bad really, but there it is. Voceditenore (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Very well put. Support this IBan. Agree that there don't seem to be enough admins willing to take on my original proposal. I was hoping that the parties themselves might do the recruiting, but that didn't work either.

I also note that Fram has already supported exactly this IBan in very similar terms [103] (correct me if I'm wrong). Andrewa (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. You may count me as a support (here, or if you turn this into a separate section). While I still personally feel the recent most egregious problems are perhaps not truly from both sides, they both have a long history of causing trouble and being too focused on each other, and ending this dsiruption in this way seems the most fair. Fram (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should bear in mind that this is not a court that dispenses justice or even pretends to do so (to quote my favourite lawyer, "there's commonsense, there's justice, and there's the law, and the court is only interested in the law"). This is a management process that empowers volunteer Wikipedians to create an encyclopedia. I've spent much of my life empowering volunteer church musicians, and one of the hardest things is telling a keen and competent musician that they don't fit in. But it must sometimes be done. I have almost always succeeded in finding them other roles in the church and/or its music, but I admit to one very painful failure. It happens. And I have myself been on the receiving end, twice. The world did not end.

We do want to be fair, but only because unfairness disempowers Wikipedians. It's not an end in itself, and sometimes it needs to be compromised. It happens. Andrewa (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

One minor point... if one or both continues, there's still the option of a stronger community ban rather than going to ARBCOM. And I think both parties should be made aware that this is a possibility. Andrewa (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

IBan

There is support above for a two-way IBan, and no dissension as yet.

There was also support previously for a one-way IBan... a nominator and one supporter that I can see, I may have missed others, but this did not proceed further. Neither the nominator nor supporter of this earlier proposal have commented on the two-way proposal. And there are some other comments but no concrete proposal, pointing out that one of them has been IBanned before and that the results were not good.

There is a comment that an IBan would need to include article space... it does. Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to... undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means (Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban, my emphasis)

A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. (Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban)

Other opinions? Or, relevant discussion I may have missed? Andrewa (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No details

I have no time for details, and hate the words aggressor. I started An Wasserflüssen Babylon, and asked Mathsci to help. Why Francis came in, split part of the (by then expanded) article to make it one of his, and then said it's unstable, I will not be able to understand. Just look at the DYK nomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, FS started that article as a redirect, you turned it into an article, and FS started working on that article as well some 30 minutes after you started working on it. No idea where or when you asked Mathsci to help, but your reply gives the impression that FS only noted the article after you asked Mathsci to help, when in reality they had created it and started working on it immediately when you did, while Mathsci's first edit to the article was more than a week later. Fram (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

For all other purposes: making a redirect a real article is considered a new article, unless we split hairs. Francis made probably hundreds of such redirects for hymns, which I don't like because the reader gets disappointed arriving just in the middle of some author's hymnal when expecting information of a hymn. - I'm ready to forget the below. Drmies and Boing! said Zebedee helped in such situations (on top of others who are no admins). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"Splitting hairs"? Not really. Your post gave the impression that FS started editing that article after you (and probably because you) asked Mathsci to help. You have not indicated where and when you asked Mathsci to help, making it hard to verify your claim, but in any case itis not unreasonable to assume, given that he had created the redirect and that he arrived at the article 30 minutes after your first edit (and a week before Mathscis first edit), that he actually simply had the article on his watchlist, and that this has nothing to do with FS following Mathsci. Fram (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I didn't say anything about when Francis came in, and think it doesn't even matter. Factual corrections are one thing, and fine, but making massive changes (including making part of the article that Mathsci wrote a new article), and then complaining about "unstable", is not fair. - It would have worked to suggest a split, and let Mathsci decide to do that, or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It would have been easy to check my talk for "Wasserflüsse", no? Possible DYK for nice image. Sometimes I ask Francis, but never both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I checked on their talk page, which seemed the logical place to find a request from you to Mathsci. Thanks for providing the link. Fram (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I am an informal person, and don't remember any "formal" request for help here, ever. Mathsci came to my talk with a (new) DYK suggestion, and as part of the reply, I mentioned the DYK (which had been nominated then), saying that additions were welcome as long as they are sourced. If you have time, read the discussion, for a spirit of collaboration. - I thank Voceditenore for the analysis above, - I forgot some unpleasant details and want to keep it that way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

A short illustration of why I rather not ask Francis (whose expertise on the topics is beyond doubt) is here, short and recent: I ask the relevant project neutrally what members think of his tags on a specific article, and get accused of forum-shopping. ([104], [105], among others). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that FS also has a record of following Gerda to articles she has written and creating disruption, irrespective of Mathsci's participation. His behaviour on Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 and its talk page in April–May 2016 is a particularly egregious example, but not an isolated one. Gerda and another editor (not Mathsci) brought the article to Featured status in March 2016. One month after its promotion FS showed up and started making swingeing changes to the content with no prior discussion [106]. This included unilaterally moving the page to a new title [107] and edit-warring [108], [109] to keep it there. Gerda objected to the page move and participated in the post hoc discussion on the talk page but Francis refused to participate any further in that discussion after less than a day and then unilaterally closed it. Instead of initiating a proper requested move discussion with wider participation, he festooned the article with maintenance tags and said he was taking it to FAR with the intent of getting it demoted because it was "unstable" [110]. The FAR was closed as out of process but he continued his bulldozing. On the talk page he copied editors' comments on other talk pages with their signatures, misleadingly refactoring them as he saw fit, and failing to provide links to the original context [111]. By 20 May the article was still festooned with tags and virtually all of its previous editors, including its main editor had been driven away. Its talk page became an unreadable mess and a place where FS talked only to himself. It finally came to an end when Brianboulton (at the time one of the TFA coordinators) archived the discussions and removed all the maintenance tags from the article [112]. It is a similar tactic FS used at the recent DYK nomination for An Wasserflüssen Babylon, which I will analyse in The details above in a few minutes. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The conclusion of this section seems to me to be that both contributors exhibit problematic behaviour, and that there is at best a far weaker consensus as to which of them is the worse. I repeat my observation that both are passionately here to build an encyclopedia and that both contribute a great deal of time, energy and competence towards that goal, and will now add that we seem to have consensus on that.

...or if severe in aught, The love he bore to learning was in fault. ref Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that Francis Schonken hasn't edited in a few days, and therefore hasn't been heard from in this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

His last edit was four days ago. [113] But this discussion has been going on for over a month, and he was informed of it both by pinging him here and as required on his talk page, and he has yet to respond here at all, or have I missed it?

If I haven't missed it, then his not responding here is because he doesn't wish to do so, not because he's (more recently) on a Wikibreak. Andrewa (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• On 6 August 2016 Mathsci agreed to a series of unblock conditions, including (in Mathsci's own words):
  • I would be far more careful not to overreact.
  • I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors.
  • I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article.
  • I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills.
  • ... I don't edit articles on controversial topics.
  • When there are content problems that require expertise (knowledge of mathematics, knowledge of organ playing, knowledge of French) I would be careful to speak dispassionately about the problems and strenuously avoid belittling other editors.

... which didn't work out (see recent examples above). This could be handled by taking note that Mathsci didn't keep to his unblock conditions, and reblock. I'm open to finding a more suitable solution than (blunt) block. It is a pity that Mathsci seems somehow impervious to one-way IBAN (if I understand the above correctly), but I don't want to be a victim of that by seeing an IBAN imposed on me. I have collaborated with Mathsci constructively, and the encyclopedia (mainspace) has improved as a result. Discussions can be rough, but in the end this may result in an improved article (e.g. List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach printed during his lifetime). There's only one way to make that work though, that is: more or less strict adherence to behavioural policies and guidelines, including very strict adherence to WP:TPG. I've had little support on this approach, including by Newyorkbrad, Softlavender, Johnuniq, and Bishonen (someone I personally have in higher esteem than the three previous editors taken together). Newyorkbrad, Softlavender and Johnuniq have sometimes led by bad example instead of by good example, the bad example then later being followed by Mathsci – which is a pity and one of the reasons that brought us here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody wants to be IBanned, or to IBan anyone else. But in terms of improving Wikipedia, what exactly would a two-way, no-fault IBan cost you, apart from the perceived insult? There are others who can keep an eye on Bach articles.

Or, would it help if we excluded my user talk page from the IBan, as I proposed once before? (And maybe even seek a few more volunteers for this.) Andrewa (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's good to have Francis Schonken contribute here, but rather than laying more charges on Mathsci, I'm much more interested in their response to the various behavioral charges that have been laid on them by other editors in this thread. Editors such as myself who are not very familiar with the conflict between these two editors, and who do not have a "side" to buttress or defend, need to hear both sides, and the value of Schonken being here is for us hear their POV about their own behavior, since we have already heard charges against Mathsci and Mathsci's response to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, and this is simply a personal opinion, slagging off Newyorkbrad and other editors in such a fashion as Schonken does here does not "play" very well to a neutral audience intent on evaluating Schonken's Wiki-behavior, as well as that of Mathsci. Their choice to do so as part of their first response to this AN is, to say the least, concerning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It is of course a flagrant breach of wp:NPA. But in practice, I'm afraid that is no longer a policy, and it would be unreasonable (I first said "unfair" but I'd better be consistent myself) to expect FS to abide by it when many admins do not, and escape all censure. Andrewa (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec x2) @Andrewa: did you ever collaborate constructively with Mathsci, resulting in an improved article? Throw fairness out of the window, replacing it by sympathies ("... some of us sympathise more with Francis Schonken and some with Mathsci ...")? I'm not soliciting sympathies: what is best for the encyclopedia, is best for me too – mulling over old grudges (I hardly remember details of when I last interacted with you), is however hardly something that seems best for the encyclopedia imho.

I once had a long conversation with Gerda on someone else's user talk page, which settled most of the tensions between us, so that we can collaborate fairly constructively in most circumstances (e.g. "Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld" DYK). If something like that could happen with Mathsci, I'd be more than happy: it's at least in part up to the community now to discriminate whether that could be attempted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I agree with most of what Fram said above, however not with "... both have a long history of ... being too focused on each other ..." (my emphasis), at least not from my side. Mathsci has a very unhealthy obsession for me, at least, that's my POV (since you were asking to "hear [my] POV about [my] own behavior"). Other than POV, I'd of course be prepared to give diffs and/or explain my diffs if they would be prone to misunderstanding. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In response primarily to Beyond My Ken, but really to the rest of you as well re "both sides" and their participation here. At a particularly lengthy and fraught ANI episode involving these two editors, but primarily FS, I wrote:

"You have a lot to offer. Your edits are often very valuable and you are clearly dedicated to improving Wikipedia. But you do that at the expense of exhausting and driving off equally valuable editors from articles and making talk page discussions intolerable. Yes, improving the Bach articles is important but so is common courtesy, cooperation, and respect for your colleagues. I know it's not easy to find several editors criticising you in a public forum, but I encourage you to reflect a bit on what we're saying. If you don't, I'm afraid you'll end up here again and again."

FS failed to do so and instead concentrated there on attacking other editors and trying to lay all blame on everyone else. He is exhibiting the same behaviour here so far. I too hope he now changes his tactics, but it seems unlikely. That ANI resulted in him being restricted to one revert per page in any calendar month. The restriction lasted 6 months and applied to all pages except his own user and user talk pages. It brought blessed relief to those of editing in the classical music area. However, once the restriction ended, he returned to his previous practices. Ditto Mathsci's promises when he was unblocked after making egregious personal attacks in another topic area that same year [114].

What we have here are two different "styles" of dealing with conflict and indeed creating it. Both are equally disruptive to the rest of us. Both demonstrate a spectacular lack of self-awareness. Francis never makes egregious personal attacks (only persistent and veiled ones, including ones in this very discussion), but can be so severely tendentious that he drives other editors (not just Mathsci) away from some topics and creates a simply awful atmosphere. When Mathsci becomes personally or emotionally invested in a topic, he finds it nigh on impossible to stop writing enormous walls of text which simply replicate content arguments rather than seeking a solution to behavioural issues, including his own. As in the most recent case, these can soon degenerate into very egregious personal attacks. His approach likewise creates a simply awful atmosphere. This would be a "no blame" 2-way IBan. It has the potential to bring a bit of peace and quiet to us all. However, unless both of these editors seriously reflect on what's being said here, it may be only temporary and ultimately result in a loss of editing privileges for both of them. Voceditenore (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

... talk about regurgitating stale business: FYI, I was sanctioned in the 2016 ANI episode (BTW, you were the third to link to it from this discussion), I soaked it in as closed, lived by the imposed rules, learnt a few lessons and moved on. It is rather characteristic for me to play the blame game as little as possible (I can't recognise myself in "concentrated there on attacking other editors and trying to lay all blame on everyone else"). Doesn't mean everyone can steam-roll over me, and I think that at ANI an open discussion is often most useful in the long run. I'd rather say I wasn't open enough in that 2016 discussion. I've since been back at ANI some times (not always in the role of accused), and it all passed fairly well, again, lessons learnt, some evolution, etc. Describing that as falling back to previous behaviour seems at least a bit unfair (or, engrained in stolid sympathies/antipathies if you like that description better). At Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon, I tried to do Gerda a favour by offering my services after the DYK seemed (again) to have ground down in immobility. That's my current behaviour, and I'm open to see it analysed. Yes I made an error there and then: I should have taken Mathsci to AN3, for others to assess, after they removed my talk page comment (addressed at Gerda!) a few times in less than half an hour, and then again, after Gerda had replied to it.

I obviously can't talk for Mathsci. I can talk about how I experience them: their behaviour seems again tangentially coming closer to the place that got them a few long-term blocks. In short, I don't think the bolded "Both" brings us nearer to a solution today (even if it ever would have). WP:AN participants, I think you can do better than that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In my view, what went on at An Wasserflüssen Babylon and Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon, which precipitated the current discussion and which I have analysed in detail in the previous section, illustrates exactly the same problems in the 2016 incident. I note that the "offer of your services" has not been responded to by Gerda nor has she further edited the article she created. I can't say that I blame her for walking away and I consider both you and Mathsci responsible for that outcome. You are of course entitled to you own opinion of what went on there. I'll let others decide. Voceditenore (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

My last edits to the article were fixes reference errors. I gave up, not knowing how their system works, nor which ref supports what fact. Mathsci knows but is not available. - I have plenty of other things to do, and avoid conflict whenever I can. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Then a practical first step could be to return to a reference system you're comfortable with, per WP:CITEVAR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree.

And that is not an unusual outcome when violations of WP:NPA occur. The most spectacular case that I have yet seen was the involvement of User:Viktor van Niekerk with trying to warn myself and Janet Marlow (not the runner by that name) away from the ten-string guitar page. Viktor and Janet are arguably (and in my opinion) the two most significant ten-string guitarists now living, and both were once Wikipedians, contributing to guitar related articles (naturally). However Viktor is passionate about promoting the original tuning of the ten-string classical guitar, while Janet uses a different tuning. Over a period of time Viktor repeatedly attacked Janet (and me) with increasing venom and he was eventually indeffed, but it took a while, and meantime Janet quietly left. Had we taken earlier action to address Viktor's personal attacks we would IMO certainly have retained Janet, and quite possibly Viktor as well, we will never know.

My point in saying all that is that we can easily underestimate the damage done by personal attacks. Andrewa (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What a bad breath. Voceditenore and Andrewa, could you please stop your wild accusations? This starts to reflect very badly on both of you. I have nothing to do with User:Viktor van Niekerk, nor with ten-string classical guitar articles. "Mathsci went on to increasingly bizarre and totally unacceptable personal attacks on FS", that far I agree with Voceditenore, but that doesn't implicate me for anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You have made personal attacks on this very page (do I really need to give the diffs)? That is not a wild accusation. If you have a complaint about my behaviour, raise it on my user talk page. But I would point out that baseless complaints are disruptive.

This section is about your behaviour and that of Mathsci. Please stick to that topic here. Andrewa (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I criticize your behaviour in this section: you assume the role of "accuser" and pretend that makes your actions immune to scrutiny. The bad breath that speaks from your wild accusations is unhelpful to reducing tensions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No. I am pretending nothing. My actions are not immune to scrutiny, but this section is not the place to discuss my behaviour. Your claim here that I am making wild accusations is disruptive on several counts. Please desist.

I have been trying hard not to escalate this. You have left me no choice. Done. Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Drastic proposal to stop the fighting

Based on "Squatters rights" idea further up. Mathsci (MS) is authorized to unilaterally ban FS from 20 articles of his (MS's) choosing, and FS can similarly ban MS from 20. They each privately compose a list of the 20 articles they want to ban the other from and they email their lists to a 3rd editor. After receiving both lists, the 3rd editor posts the lists and the bans go into effect. MS is banned from the articles on FS's list, FS likewise from MS's, and (by linearity) both are banned from any articles on both lists. Maybe they can make some judicious choices with the bans, and then stay out of each others' way for a while. If they want to divvy up the dual-banned articles by mutual agreement (maybe a mediator can help) they can do that, but it's optional. They are both good editors who get a bit irrational sometimes. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's worth a try.

We have discussed this long enough and do now need a way forward. Other ideas? Andrewa (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Simple IBan is much easier. This proposal will have them clashing again on some article not on the list of 20 in no time. Fram (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Can the iban work? Who gets to edit which articles? That was a sticking point further up, though I admit getting glazed over reading parts of it. The above method of dividing up the articles could be in conjunction with an iban. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

See the policy at wp:IBAN. I assume you've read it; What is the problem? Andrewa (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I don't understand why the simple IBan didn't get support above. This is exactly the situation for which an IBan was intended. It's an established, tried and proven measure. So let's revisit it, and this time DO something.

Unless of course one of them gets a lengthy block in the meantime, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility IMO, and would have the desirable side effect of keeping them apart! Andrewa (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Per Fram, the list of 20 articles is a needless complication and won't stop a set-to over an article not on the list. Also, it doesn't preclude their melees on article talk pages, DYK nominations etc. The behaviour of both editors, is equally poor, if not worse, on talk pages and merely exacerbates the conflict. For the "glazed over" IP 173.228.123.166, I'll repeat my initial suggestion:

A two-way IBAN to include article space, which bars each of them from editing an article unless they were the first of the two edit it (simple redirects do not count). Make it apply to the article's talk page and to any related discussions about the page as well.

It's possible that just the "normal IBAN" would work since it would preclude them undo each other's edits to any page. Andrewa, I think if you want to make progress on some type of IBAN or other resolution, I suggest you create a separate section, clearly stating what is proposed, and invite participants in this discussion to opine "support" or "oppose" there. If you have two different proposals, i.e. this one and the "normal IBAN", create a separate section for each proposal or the whole thing will become impossibly confused and confusing. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. The hope was that they would each end up with a set of articles that they were interested in and could edit in "peace", but ok. I did see the quoted iban proposal but felt like it gave too much first-mover advantage. It shouldn't be possible to own an article by making 1 tiny edit to it. Hasn't that been done with a bit more flexibility before? Did it work? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed IBan

I propose and support an IBan on Francis Schonken and Mathsci.

This to be no-fault as no consensus is likely as to whether one is principally responsible for the conflict and which one if so. Its purpose is not to punish but to protect Wikipedia, and recognising both as valued and highly principled editors. Andrewa (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

I suggest bulleted support or oppose !votes below, each with a brief rationale (see closing for some hints), but comment on these rationales to take place in the #Discussion section below.

• Support per my comments above and per the analysis by Voceditenore. Fram (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support No bone in this fight; but from my impression that a) both editors are providing excellent content when not at each other's throats; b) neither is in the least willing to be concessionary if not compelled to; c) there is too much history and dirty laundry on either side for clear disentanglement - an IBAN seems like the best shot. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Just for the wish to get this shitshow out of the way. Seems a common sense idea, even if IBANs are rather unwieldy things. talk to !dave 08:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my various analyses in previous sections, e.g. [115], [116], [117]. Hopefully this will work. The shenanigans have gone on long enough. Voceditenore (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Fram and Voceditenore. There has been too much disruption of classical music articles due to this longstanding feud.Smeat75 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm modelling this of course on the RM discussion format. If anyone feels this inappropriate, also comment here and/or on my user talk page. TIA

I have not specified a term. Indefinite is excessive IMO, but not particularly harmful, as either can request it to be lifted (the policy doesn't specifically allow this but surely that is commonsense). Suggestions on the term welcome. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Noting that Mathsci has not edited in one week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, hopefully, his health hasn't worsened, and he has had periods in the past when he has edited infrequently or not at all, e.g. from June to October 2017, which do not appear to be health related. He's made quite lengthy statements in this discussion, although he hasn't suggested any solutions nor has he really reflected on his own behaviour in them. I don't think this current absence (for whatever reason) impacts on any decision concerning an IBan. The problem is what it is. It will not go away unless something concrete is finally done about it. Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Closing

Can some uninvolved admin close this before it automatically archives? Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO the alternative is to seek a medium-length block on FS, see his latest attempt at communication. But the consensus on the IBan seems strong enough to me (I'm involved of course), and the only agenda is to protect Wikipedia. I remain of the opinion that an IBan is worth a try.

My two past attempts at bringing issues to ANI both auto-archived without closure (one with strong consensus but no action, the other with no comment at all), so I'm now feeling a bit better about that anyway. It seems I may not be the only one. Andrewa (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed two recent examples from FS at WT:Wikidata: diff + diff (see "whining"). Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:NoicatanetXxX

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Posting this here because both WP:AIV and WP:ANI are semi-protected. NoicatanetXxX (talk · contribs) is a recent vandalism-only account on a vandalism spree. Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:24A0:D942:C76C:A52A:8C56 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I reported to WP:AIV Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

White space vandal returns, again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He's back, as 177.103.188.78 this time. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. The IP was blocked by Bbb23 for 61 days. Please let us know if you come across them again GoodDay. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

They've been doing this for about 3 years & counting, now. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He's back as User:2804:14C:123:AE2F:94A2:D5BD:4D54:8E51. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, i want to edit a wikipedia page but it is protected to prevent vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How can i edit the page which is protected to prevent vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchesterofindia12345 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the page you are trying to edit? You can post an edit request on the talk page of the article itself to have the edit made. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please swing by and mop up some requests, particularly Peter Fonda. The vandalism there is pretty busy. Home Lander (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done The Fonda article is a perfect example of why trusted users should be able to semi-protect articles for a short period of time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General sanctions for articles on professional wrestling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm bringing this over from ANI as it's probably a more appropriate location. Modeled from last month's proposal for GS on blockchain articles and from the ANI discussion here. I don't think 1RR is necessary, but I'm happy to be disagreed with. Natureium (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Should the community authorize standard discretionary sanctions for all pages related to professional wrestling, broadly construed?

• Support as proposer, due to the unreasonable amount of drama brought by editors of article related to professional wrestling. Natureium (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Ditto. EEng 01:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not convinced this will solve the problems in this area. There are two main problems I see. First, the area is a magnet for new and immature editors, many of whom are not auto-confirmed. I don't feel it would be reasonable or beneficial to semi-protect the entire area WP:ARBIPA-style, and nothing else will prevent these editors from making contributions. By the time they are informed they will likely stop editing or switch accounts (I don't believe discretionary sanctions help at all in fighting sock-puppetry; please correct me if I am wrong). Second, there are content issues in that many articles contain an excessive amount of in-universe detail, generally only sourced to the TV shows themselves or media sources focused on pro-wrestling. That probably should be dealt with through a project-wide RFC, not by Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support (edit conflict) from the little I have seen this area seems to be a walled garden more concerned with in-universe coverage than encyclopedic coverage of the topic. This is a good first step to cleaning it up and tamping down the associated drama. Jbh ^Talk 01:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support while i do not really appreciate the negativity and hostility expressed by several People in the discussions in various places I see no problems personally in saying "Hey the rules do apply to pro wrestling articles and those who don't get that May suffer." As a well educated, mature wrestling fan I am all for anything that cuts down on the junk. But really don't appreciate being looked Down in because I enjoy scripted entertainment, shame.  MPJ-DK  04:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• SupportPer Hunley.∯WBG^converse 04:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• God yes Long overdue. --Tarage (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Oh, look! Another pointless wrestling controversy! [118] EEng 06:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And look, someone who views wrestling as something more important than it actually is! --Tarage (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

So..... isn't every stupid edit war on here "someone who views their opinion as morenimportant than it is"? No matter the suvbject matter. I do wish this could be a factual discussion, not an opportunity for People to just push their bias, but then that is just me "stupidly thinking" that this could be achieved without such snide, condesending comments. I guess when the topic is under a GS no one Will scrutinize People's comments here closer to see if the add to escalation of negativity or not.  MPJ-DK  10:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Try that again when you can make a sentence without a typo. --Tarage (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh Yes standard tactic of someone who loses an argument, Thank you.  MPJ-DK  06:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Lose nothing. I can't make heads or tails of your typo-ridden comment. Try again. --Tarage (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh sure, i Can see how it is impossible to figure out what "suvbject" is supposed to mean, that is quite a problem.  MPJ-DK  10:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hell. Yes When the first WWE spats started popping up on ANI, it reminded me way too much of the weekly MMA spats a few years back. That was firmly stepped on and sets a good precedent on how this sort of shenanigans needs to be dealt with. Blackmane (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Seeing the amount of stuff coming the way of AN/I, DS will help with that. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'll speak from my experience with the blockchain sanctions. GS is best if you have a bunch of established, problematic editors. It won't help you much against SPAs, socks and new accounts unless you are prepared to semi-protect all the frequently hit pages, with ECP on a significant subset. We still have a continual stream of crap about new ICOs flowing into draft space. In hindsight, the best means of cracking down on cryptocurrency garbage would be DS + a blanket ban on new editors creating articles and draft articles within the subject area. The only deterrent effect against SPAs is "here are a big bunch of scary rules, if you breach them you will be blocked", except most of these accounts would have been SPAs anyway. The most beneficial part of GS is I am able to delete native advertising on the spot, outside the CSDs. Fancruft is a much less serious problem than spam and I don't think one that warrants summary deletion. Support, I guess, with a strong word of caution that this is only a 20% solution to the problem. MER-C 10:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

How would you ban new editors from creating blockchain articles? Is this done in other areas? That's an interesting idea. Natureium (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You could try using an abuse filter set to deny if a new page contains certain words, but it won't be watertight. You can summarily delete anything that makes it through and sanction the creator. MER-C 12:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Limited support - I support certain sanctions such as requiring extended confirmed. I do not believe the WP:1RR restrictions would be helpful in this scenario due to the nature of professional wrestling and the way things can change back and forth with regularity. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

1RR isn't part of this specific proposal, although I don't know why repeated reverting would be necessary. Natureium (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: It shouldnt be, but my concern is that things change quickly. I don't want people afraid to make constructive edits which from the outside could appear to be a 1RR violation. If a title changes hands back and forth in one night, or more, an outside admin could misconstrue this. For example, take a look at List of WWE Hardcore Champions and there are several days where it changed multiple times. This back and forth could easily look like edit warring rather than constructive editing, when changing who is listed on List of current champions in WWE. Its things like that. Or last year there was one title change that was later reversed, changing that back although accurate would now have used up that one revert. Due to the nature of live and frequent television, these sort of changes happen often. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And that just HAS to be updated the very second it changes, right? God forbid people wait a few days for things to settle. Nope, everyone reading the wiki MUST know who currently has the made up title or they will be so very confused. If anything, your statement strengthens the need for 1RR. Wikipedia is not a playground for this nonsense. You have fan wikis for a reason. --Tarage (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: Once again you show your bias toward professional wrestling. Literally everything is updated as things happen. I would love to see you suggest the NBA finals not be updated for a few days after the game and see where that gets you. After Miss America is crowned we should wait and see what happens just in case some controversy pops up and they strip her title, right? Better yet lets never update anything because Joe Paterno had his records changed years later and just in case, we should not have ever put them there. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

STOP HIGHLIGHTING ME. I'm not going to ask you a third time. "Literally everything is updated as things happen." Actually we tend to lock articles that have major events such as someone's death so we can have time to get the facts straight. Your arguments are disingenuous because none of those events happen on the inane frequency that professional wrestling does. Literally every week or sometimes more than once a week your pretend titles shuffle around. You don't see Football articles created and edited for "who has the most points AS OF THIS SECOND". --Tarage (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: Let me get this straight, I am supposed to ignore the comments that you keep posting in response to me? Yeah thats logical... Also they aren't pretend title, nice try, they are real. They are actual physical championship belts. Just because the outcomes are predetermined it doesn't make them pretend. You are correct, you don't see who has the most points right now, but you also don't see who has the most wins. In fact, the low level of stats are no where on wikipedia, only high level accomplishments, which do no get updated nearly as often as career results for sports figures. Nice try though. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I am seriously questioning your competence. You said, and I quote: "...my concern is that things change quickly. If a title changes hands back and forth in one night, or more..." How about don't update it till the night is over? That something can be updated more than once A NIGHT is FAR more frequent than ANY OTHER SPORT. And yes, by definition, an award is fake if the outcome is predetermined. It has no weight behind it, because it's make believe. --Tarage (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: Go right ahead and question it. Please let me know what policy you are basing your "wait until the night is over" argument on. If you checked the link I gave you above the history remains, so whats the advantage to adding multiple at once rather than as it happens? Double headers happen more often in baseball than a title changes twice in professional wrestling, therefore should the rule be not to update a page until the second game of the double header is over? Also you might want to get a better understanding of your arguments before you make them. The definition of predetermined is "determine beforehand" according to Merriam-Webster [119]. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the Oscar winner determined before the event itself, and just not revealed until the night of? Sounds to me that meets the same definition of what you are complaining about. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

How about WP:NOTNEWS? - Donald Albury 20:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: Thats for routine news. No other championship is considered routine and not updated, so why is this different? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Why does the frequency of update bug you so much? Frequency is in itself neither good.nor bad. Don't know why people have such a mad on for articles they can just avoid in general.  MPJ-DK  20:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Because indulging this kind of breathless coverage attracts brainless fans as editors who get into disputes the rest of us have to clear up. EEng 21:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Tut-tut-tut, name calling does not really help differentiate yourself from those whom you seek to malign. If hit s certain AN activity others Will stop waiting to "clean up" after you.  MPJ-DK  23:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Whaaaat??? EEng 00:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

TL;DR version without typos - WP:CIVIL  MPJ-DK  00:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Does the superbowl get updated every time someone scores? No? Then why should wrestling? Why should a pretend sport with predetermined outcomes get updated more rapidly than actual legitimate sports? You still haven't answered that question, and I doubt you can. --Tarage (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Who cares about Update frequency?? 1 or 100 updates in a night is not a reason to imposed a topic wide sanction.  MPJ-DK  06:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If said edits cause edit wars and drama, they are a problem. And this is why it's needed. --Tarage (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So you do agree that it is not a frequency problem as such. "x" number of edits in an hour is neither Good nor bad in itself, it is an invalid argument.  MPJ-DK  10:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, the problem is you aren't comparing apples to oranges. For a professional wrestling pay-per-view it gets updated after the individual match, or championships only when the title changes hand. We don't wait for the Olympics to be over to update the individual competitions, why should we here? We don't wait in between NBA finals games. We dont wait in between double headers in baseball. Just because the results are predetermined, that doesn't make a difference, and saying it does is not based on any policy, nor does it help build an encyclopedia. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Except no, if it's causing problems for wikipedia (Big hint: It is), then it's problematic and should change. But do keep being oblivious to this fact. --Tarage (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support and comment While this would help, I don't think it addresses the actual content issues where a lot of these disputes stem from. My particular concern is with biographies, which have a long-standing norm of being written in a detailed, in-universe perspective. They are closer to being bios about fictional characters rather than the actual people who portray them. Strict guidelines need to be put in place that determine what is worthy of inclusion in these articles, because at the moment they are edited chaotically. For those unaware, the most popular wrestling promotion in the world, WWE, broadcasts three to five "major" events per week, every week of the year. Those events alone include hundreds of performers who have continuously progressing storylines, which these new and inexperienced users flock to update their pages as if they are a news feed. Now, add every other promotion on top of that... it's very easy for the small amount of experienced users that participate in these articles to get swamped and not maintain order or quality. Regardless if any content restrictions are imposed, requiring at least semi-protection of each professional wrestling article would be a huge step. Prefall 13:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think a proper professional wrestling notability guideline is also needed. Right now they fall under WP:ENT which doesn't take a lot of specifics into account. It results in way too many AfD for non-notable performers. Most of the inexperienced editors seem to have the mindset of this user [120] thinking wikipedia wants to most amount of details possible, no matter what. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, but please for the love of god can we leave this open for a few days. Don't WP:SNOW close it and give people another chance to complain about railroading and not having the opportunity to contribute, or this whole thing will get kicked up to arbcom and nobody will be happy about that, least of all the arbs. Fish+Karate 14:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: aye, and some sort of general notability guideline is needed, too, per Galatz. However, let's not snow-close it quite yet. (Also, can we add kickboxing to the list, or do I need a new RfC for that? I'm kidding, I know I need a new RfC for that.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - of course. This is overdue. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support. As a member of the professional wrestling WikiProject, we really could cut down on the bad stuff. I also agree with Galatz's proposal for a specific notability guideline. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with the commentor above that the "in-universe" treatment of the subject, speaking of it as if it were real, is unacceptable. Frankly, it's beyond that. It's abhorrent and it drags the entire encyclopedia down with it. How can anyone accept that we have accurate credible coverage of medical topics, or geographic topics or history topics when we speak of WWE like it's real? I highly doubt it could gain traction, but a proposal to nuke every article we have on the subject, and the project behind them, and start all over again with community set guidelines would certainly not be without some support. John from Idegon (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with nuking a couple thousand articles and pretending like the last seventeen years of editing history didn't happen. Sounds good. — Moe Epsilon 04:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support What we call an "in-universe" perspective is called Kayfabe in the strange world of professional wrestling. Any content written from the "kayfabe" perspective must be ruthlessly deleted from Wikipedia and any editor adding this type of false content must be warned and sanctioned if they persist. We cannot allow this garbage to pollute the encyclopedia, and all content related to professional wrestling must be rigorously neutral, "real world" in perspective, and based on independent sources of impeccable reliability. Any source that publishes "kayfabe" content is, by definition, not reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cullen328: That scrub has already been done, you can find a list of the reliable sources at WP:PW/RS. The problem is the inexperienced editors who believe they know better than that list and attempt to add stuff listed as not reliable. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That scrub has already been done – are you crazy? Here again are excerpts from Israeli_Wrestling_League:

The battle between The Black Leopard and Da Style did not take place after Da Style went into the ring with a medical certificate allowing him not to wrestle at the show. Instead, Da Style brought the "Chinese" wrestler, who lost to The Black Leopard. Later, Da Style brought out the real opponent of The Black Leopard for the evening, Kronos. The Black Leopard was close to winning but finally encountered a spear after trying to jump on Kronos from the ropes. After the fight, Da Style attacked The Black Leopard with the crutches, in similarity to IWL II. The White Leopard came to the aid of The Black Leopard with a chair, chasing away Kronos and Da Style. ... In the main event of the evening, Iceman Rozin successfully defended the IWL Heavyweight Championship against The White Leopard after a long battle. In the end, Kronos hit The White Leopard with the spear without the referee's acknowledgement. Iceman seized the opportunity and pinned The White Leopard after the Icebreaker. After the battle, the new claimants Ken Kerbis and Max Havok came to the ring, and stood in front of the champion when Havok hit his friend Kerbis with a kick in the face, and was the victim of the Icebreaker from Iceman. ... The evening's main event saw Max Havok meet Iceman Rozin, in which Iceman tried to regain the IWL Heavyweight Championship in a table match. After a difficult battle and after a couple of attempts by the two contestants to slam each other through the table, Havok finally managed to slam Iceman on the table, but the table didn't break. Havok tried several times, but the table remained unbroken while Iceman lost consciousness. The battle was halted after the referee signaled that Iceman could not proceed with the battle.

All in-universe idiocy. Your continued posting here and at ANI has brought so much attention to this that I have little doubt that we will soon move on to the long-needed WP:TNT to this whole walled garden. EEng 02:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You are qupting an actual summary of an event. Yes those will be written in a way that they summarize an event. There is no other way to summarize them than to actually summarize. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Galatz, if you truly believe that the complete kayfaybe garbage quoted above actually belongs in this encyclopedia, then you are part of the problem and not the solution. That style of writing says that a "battle" took place and that "medical certificate" was produced and that someone "lost consciousness" and a "championship" was "defended". Those are all blatant lies and all such lies must be rigorously purged from this encyclopedia. How can you possibly defend that garbage writing? Go start Wrestlepedia instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: If you think that, than you have just proven you have a bias toward professional wrestling articles. Let say for example you go to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) and read the plot page, you will see that Albus Dumbledore, Minerva McGonagall, and Rubeus Hagrid, professors of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.... Last time I checked that is not a real school and they are not really professors. Are you suggesting this get deleted? Its not different, they both are summarizing plots of something which airs for entertainment purposes. Was Michael Scott (The Office) actually hired as a salesman at Dunder Mifflin in the 1990s, where he proved to be extremely effective? If he didn't actually do that than its lies that must be rigorously purged according to you. Also if you check out the professional wresting event style guide it clearly says at WP:PW/PPVG that every event page should start with a summary explaining that its scripted, something movies don't do yet you have know issue with their "lies". - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 01:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support I tend to agree with those above that this doesn't do much to help the many issues plaguing the project, but it may be of some benefit. WWE has many young and passionate fans that take to the encyclopedia to craft in-universe bios. SPAs and socks are pervasive and they're not going to be phased by any of this. Unfortunately, we've lost some good contributors to indefinitely blocks because they weren't able to control their temper when dealing with these issues. To my knowledge, only one person has ever been topic banned from this topic and that process took a lot more time than it should have. More people need to be topic banned and I agree with the proposals above that we need reliable page protection and a notability guideline.LM2000 (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gail Kim/1 provides good reading for those concerned about articles struggling with in-universe details. I think everybody in this thread agrees that we need to eliminate kayfabe but that's going to mean different things to different people. I've suggesting emulating how mainstream WP:RS (such as The New York Times and Encyclopedia Britannica) write articles about wrestling but even they talk about "winning" titles and "defeating" opponents.LM2000 (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Way to much of our community's time is spent dealing with these issues. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and agree that notability guideline is needed as well to deal with the walled garden of fancruft too many of these articles represent. Fram (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I feel like an awful lot of the above is down to prejudice and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The issues being discussed, with (primarily inexperienced editors) editors that are antagonistic or/and cause personal attacks are likely to come to WP:ANI regardless, and if they could not edit PW articles, they would simply find other similar wikiprojects. Having a look above, someone suggested that the whole project should fall foul of WP:TNT, simply because of some confusion between Kayfabe and real events, and that championships or accomplishments are not important because they are awarded to someone, rather than being won as a sporting context (Which, is no different from say, the BRIT awards, or similar to me).

With the above being said, we should have better notability guidelines set for PW articles (I actually attempted to create just this a few months ago), and the issues surrounding in universe terms, phrases and mentions should be looked at, however I find the idea of hampering new editors from editing articles about a particular subject in bad taste. As a wikiproject, we should be a little stricter on poor or disruptive behaviour. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

As a wikiproject, we should be a little stricter on poor or disruptive behaviour. I believe that is the whole point of the proposal. The wikiproject doesn't have any teeth to deal with disruption so it's up to those not involved with the walled garden to knock down the wall and remove the sources of disruption. If you go to the AN/ANI archives and search for MMA, there was a period of weeks if not months back in 2012 where virtually every week editors would be fighting over something in MMA. Administrators and other members of the community who frequent AN/ANI or were impacted in other ways finally had enough of it and the problem was firmly stepped on with discretionary sanctions. Blackmane (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd mention, for the record, that MMA is not Professional Wrestling (There are more differences than similarities, despite some people being active in both). I'm a little concerned that this will impact the amount of good editors that would be interested in the project. (Looking at the WP:MMA Wikiproject, it really doesn't seem to have any much activity at all. I'm worried the WP:PW Project could get cut off at the knees, without willing editors. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I would sincerely hope that these sactions have minimal effect on editors who try to work within the guidelines of Wikipedia and would actually make Their work a little easier if it cuts Down on some edit warring. We should ignore empty threats to "blow Them up" etc. and keep trying to do good work.  MPJ-DK  09:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I’ve had to experience the many issues in this subject area firsthand. Swarm ♠ 03:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support It’s not an area I personally am around much, but every time I am, it’s because there’s a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Best Known for IP sighting

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#User_talk:173.209.178.244#Best_know_for. This is a report of the Best Known for IP. I have advised the reporting editor to revert the edits, request semi-protection, and report the IP at AIV. Just thought this ought to be mentioned here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, unlikely. Not his device(s) and in the wrong place although I'd be prepared to accept that he's travelling. The person that you have is using American English and that's not his usual. "personalized" versus "behaviour".

The person that you have at that IP has some persistence over time...that looks to be someone else and possibly trying to imitate. That IP editor has been using that IP at least since July 2015 and uses an "r" for "reply" in their edit summary which is not Rbka's habit.

@Kuru:, would you please offer a second opinion?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious issue, I don't see any of the other tics. That's a long-term logged-out editor (with a clean block log) I don't want to out. Kuru (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If it isn't the Best Known for IP, then it is a Best Known for IP copycat. I assume that the proper response is the same: revert the edits; request semi-protection; report the IP at WP:AIV. If an editor removes a "best known for" phrase at the beginning of a single article, then discussion is in order, and there are reasons to criticize such phrases, but not to remove them in a bot-like fashion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the proper response is to just leave the editor alone as long as they're not doing anything disruptive, like edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

List of WWE personnel

I need some monitoring at article, I requested further protection but response needed there at WP:RFP Thread List of WWE Personnel. Admins especially from members of Wikiproject Professional Wrestling needed please. Issues regarding separating or keeping 205 Live under RAW Section. Also has multiple discussions at talk page. CK (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

ANOTHER cosmic wrestling issue. EEng 07:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Good thing discretionary sanctions are now available to admins. It's clobberin' time. Blackmane (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing at AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial profiling in Israel as well as (Redacted) (which has a fairly wide readership, myself included - mainly for gag breaking publications). The blog post also has, various accusations (including sock puppetry) against a Wikipedia editor. Per User:Richards1052 user page, who has also !voted in the AfD, he is the writer of the Tikun Olam blog (Redacted) and he signs his posts as Richard Silverstein. At a minimum the AfD should be extended confirmed protected.Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Also Tikun Olam (blog) which is intrinsically ARBPIA and was covered in that post.Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What canvassing? Do you understand what canvassing is? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The Tikun Olam itsm refers to the AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Referring to an AfD discussion is not canvassing. So again I ask: what canvassing? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The Tikun Olam item does not read like WP:APPNOTE. Specifically it refers to the AfD in a non-neutral manner (to say the least), and Tikun Olam itself has a highly selective readership on terms of political views (WP:VOTESTACKING]). This is also off-wiki (WP:STEALTH).Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. You and Kigelim both read it. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Readership of outlets usually skews to the views of the outlet. There is no particular reason to think that my views on Israel, Palestine, and the greater Middle East differ from those presented at Tikun Olam - so I fail to see how my self admitted readership provides evidence as to the makeup of readers there.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've emailed oversight but they don't seem to be responding. What that AfD does include is an attempt at outing an editor. I don't have time to clean it up today - could someone please look at it? GoldenRing (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Goldenring: you are an admin. The least you can do before posting a supposed outing here, at this very high-profile board, is to hide the revisions containing the outing. You now where you have found the outing, just a) remove it and b) hide all revisions between the first posting of it, and your deletion of it. Instead you have actually made the outing worse (much more visible and "interesting") instead of better by posting this here. Fram (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing:. Fram (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Links which speculated on the RL identity of a Wikipedia editor have been removed and oversighted. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Richard Arthur Norton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has a long-ish history of problematic editing which includes five extant editing restrictions. A rare but recent interaction between us was at Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey, which looked like this when I first saw it and comprised almost entirely contributions from RAN. A spat on his talk page soon followed when I raised his use of the FindAGrave website as a source and also his use of a private email obtained from a librarian (which I think may possibly relate to this upload at Commons. I did a big clean up, although RAN appeared not to even look at the article before his first response in that talk page thread and thus missed it.

Problems found included:

• Use of FindAGrave (WP:SPS, and he knew it because that had been the cause of one of his restrictions)
• Use of a lulu.com source (WP:SPS)
• Use of the private email from a librarian, then amending it where it disagreed with other sources - even the image description noted that it may not be reliable
• Use of thepoliticalgraveyard.com (WP:SPS)
• Use of Wikidata, including unreferenced entries such as this that he had created there himself (arguably a breach of his editing restriction)
• Use of inline notes to familysearch.org
• Use of the quote= parameter of citation templates, despite his editing restriction
• Miscalculations such as here and here
• Dodgy interpretation of sources, such as here, as per this note
• Seemingly unsourced statements, including but not limited to the ones removed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here

At one point, Ran did a mass revert, claiming my changes were "out of process", which was itself then reverted by Serial Number 54129 here. He then reverted again with a fake edit summary ("Political Graveyard is a reliable source, take it to the talk page", when in fact it was much more). Thereafter, Fram also did some cleaning up.

The fall-out included RAN opening a thread about the politicalgraveyard website at RSN and then almost immediately trying to open a similar discussion at Talk:The Political Graveyard, where he proceeded to edit war with Reyk, Fram and myself in an attempt to keep it open.

I raised some issues at Talk:Mayor_of_Long_Branch,_New_Jersey but mostly got no response, including regarding apparent howlers such as this issue. I also raised some issues on RAN's talk page after the initial thread mentioned above (see this, this and this). The latter of those threads explains my delay in posting this, which is effectively a request for comment now that RfC/U does not exist. Having now returned to editing Wikipedia after a spell where he seems to have been concentrating on Wikidata, we have things such as the edits from 14 June at W. A. Ginn. How can someone who has been here so long fail to get a grasp of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:NPOV (using one source when we know there are conflicting accounts), WP:EW and so on, let alone breaching clear and long-standing specific editing restrictions? Are they really worth the effort involved?

Posted here because RAN's absence makes the specific recent events not "recent" enough for ANI and because the range of problematic behaviour goes beyond what would be dealt with at WP:AE. - Sitush (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef-Enough non-sense.Completely clueless about our notability guidelines, coupled with spamming various sites via Wiki-data et al.It's time to part with this user, for the greater good.......∯WBG^converse 05:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - just noting that RAN's recent Wikidata activity aligns with his contributions here since his return regarding mayors of Ashland, Kentucky, so he is creating stuff there using sites that we would consider to be unreliable here and thus arguably effectively trying to game the system. He also stopped a prolific period of editing on WP in the same minute I notified him of this report. That cessation could be coincidence or because he is preparing a reply, of course, but his previous absence following the palaver about the Political Graveyard site, and failure to respond to my queries on his talk page on return, now seems almost like avoidance. I do understand that the projects have different criteria and I do understand that people (including myself with Commons) sometimes do something on one project to enable something on another. Nonetheless, I have tried to AGF but I am finding it difficult, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC) (Added later: Some of it is very convoluted, eg: this at Wikia (over which we have no control) was imported from List of Mayors of Ashland, Kentucky and then led to this change at Wikidata (over which we also have no control). Other stuff, as at the Long Branch list, seems to go in the opposite direction on to en-WP. It is a house of mirrors, much of which we cannot prevent but which is causing problems. - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC))

@Sitush:Apparently he's an admin at Familypedia, but as you said that's out of our control, so they can have him. If you look at his profile over there you can see how obsessed he is with creating entries for non-notable people and "copying and pasting". He even says that he copies and pastes each entry to five different sites. Why would anyone do that?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly Support indef- I don't know if he doesn't understand or if he simply doesn't care. He is always trying to game the system. Given his history of copyright problems (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_), you'd think he'd steer clear of anything to do with copyright. Yet, just today he advised another editor to upload a work that may be under copyright [121]. When I pointed out to him that this was bad advice, his response was "You cannot prove a negative" [122], as if we can assume that something is not copyrighted until someone proves that it is. Besides that he also mass deproded a bunch of articles without any explanation that I am certain will be deleted because of a clear lack of notability and sourcing. And he loves to "copy and paste" stuff from one article to another. Nothing can be trimmed or shortened. I tried to make some common-sense edits to List of Mayors of Ashland, Kentucky, [123]. He insists on mini-biographies (which are basically just copied and pasted from the articles up for deletion), so we now have trivial details like the names of people's parents, where they worked for their first job, the addresses of their businesses, and what clubs they were members of. He obsessed with including anything and everything he can find and doesn't seem to have any editorial discretion. And his extreme obsession with wikidata is another negative just take a look at the mayor of long branch article to see what I'm talking about (and no I'm not trying to start another wikidata debate here, but he tried to do is something that I don't think anyone else supports). In summary, he's been around a long time and should know the rules, yet he disregards them. He may have a large quantity of edits, but they are not quality edits.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

(+1) to He (is) obsessed with including anything and everything he can find and doesn't seem to have any editorial discretion.∯WBG^converse 07:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Mainly posting as if this is the thread that finally brings RAN down, I'd hate for it to have only unfavourable views. Can't disagree that what's said above might match the opinions of much of the current active community, and for that matter the thinking of certain elite professors. Yet in the eyes of the wiki community as it was back in 2004 when RAN joined, and I suspect in the eyes of most of the world's 4 billion internet users, RAN's edits are very high quality indeed. (To my knowledge, whenever regular internet users are asked their options on wiki deletion matter, a clear majority express a preference for inclusiveness.) So from a broad perspective, RAN's 200k+ edits have been of titanic value.

I feel low reading this thread as Sitush makes a strong case and I feel powerless to refute it. It's like I've let down RAN; over the years we've had some off wiki contact, but I've never emphasised to him how important it is to back down and avoid unwinnable conflict. His unflinching loyalty to old school inclusionist values is beyond admirable, but he needs to understand 99.9999% of the rest of the editing community has changed. The time when it was possible to think the inclusionist flag might prevail ended when Anobody was tragically permbanned back in 2010, some would say a few years earlier. I should have been emailing this to RAN repeatedly over the years, and then by now the message might have got through. I guess its too late now. Maybe sensible editors are going to weigh in and prevent a block, I just don't see it. If consensus for a block develops, I would beg the closing admin to consider a time limited block, even a year, rather than an indef. Then the future Wikipedia might once again benefit from RAN's incredible energy and research abilities. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I deliberately did not make much of the inclusionist/notabliity issues as I am aware that, aside from the obvious trivia he adds (eg: that I just removed the place where someone honeymooned), there are areas of debate where RAN may indeed be working within consensus. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

LOL. A Nobody is hardly an innocent victim. He's a serial sock puppeteer, troll, supercilious whinger, and fabricator of sources, and he was given far more leeway than anyone on the other side would have been given. The only person to blame for his permaban is A Nobody. Reyk _YO! 11:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support sanction. He edit-warred to re-insert findagrave references[124][125] that he added[126][127]. This is a clear violation of an editing restriction ("Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is prohibited from linking as a reference any external site to which he has contributed"), because findagrave is an external site to which he has contributed[128]. His response to a clear breach of the restriction[129] is unsatisfactory and evasive. I do not oppose a block, but less severe sanctions, such as 0RR, are another option. I also question whether he needs the patroller user right, given that he has never used it[130]. DrKay (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reverting is the least of our worries, so ORR isn't going to resolve much. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support- RAN has no respect for our inclusion requirements, particularly the ones regarding verifiability and copyright obligations. All he does is try to wikilawyer around them. It's not that he doesn't get the point-- he's had these things explained to him numerous times and at great length-- it's that he's ideologically opposed to the idea of an encyclopedia that omits unverifiable material and excruciating trivia. There's no way he will ever change. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef, since this has been going on for far too long, with no improvement in sight. Adding his own contributions on self-published sources (such as Findagrave) as references here, and creating unsourced/improperly sourced entries at Wikidata and then using them as sources here, violates just about everything that can be violated here, as he very well knows. But he doesn't care about the rules, or about Wikipedia, all he cares about is getting his own material into Wikipedia. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef - when even someone like FeydHuxtable cannot see a way forward, there isn't a way forward. I don't think a time-limited block would work because RAN has consistently ignored previous restrictions etc, never showing much sign of learning. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef (with one option) - frankly this should have been a long time ago, when RAN made it clear he wasn't interested in fixing the massive amount of copyvios that he created previously - see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108. The only non-block I would suggest is that he is left unblocked to complete the fixing of that CCI - and then, and only then - he can continue editing normally. Any edits outside that area would result in an immediate indef. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef per above. Overdue. Anybody else behaving similarly would have been blocked long ago for WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. -FASTILY 18:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef as way overdue. Should have happened when the massive copyvios were discovered. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef This editor has long been well aware of the applicable policies and guidelines. His disregard for the critical importance of complying with our copyright policy, his persistent use of self-published sources against consensus, and his wilful disregard of his editing restrictions means that he is a net negative to the project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef - The blatant disregard of his editing restriction and the disregard of WP:Verifiability is astounding to say the least, The policies apply to anyone and everyone and if you don't like it you know where the door is, Clearly a net negative (and that's putting it mildly.) –Davey2010^Talk 02:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef per Fastily, Cullen328 and Dsvey2010, and Black Kite as well, except that I think we're well past the point where RAN can redeem himself through working on his copyright violations: he had his chance, and he willfully ignored it, so that boat sailed long ago. Overdue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I seriously doubt extending the time would change the outcome, so I am not asking this to be re-opened, but in my humble opinion having a thread open for just barely over 24 hours to indef a 14-year contributor with 200k+ edits seems... unbalanced somehow. Many people may not edit on weekends, for various reasons. I'll leave it at that and hope this is food for thought, and not an instigation of hostility of any type towards any editor or variety thereof. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

78.26 I was going off of the update to WP:CBAN that had 24 hours as the minimum standard (for bans, but I was applying it here). The consensus was clear and they immediately stopped editing after receiving the notice (which I looked at because of the timing thing), so my assumption was that they were aware and choosing not to respond. Normally these discussions are short if there is a clear consensus so I didn't see the need for the pile-on since 24 hours had passed. I've never interacted with RAN to my knowledge, so there is not hostility or anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, I did not think you had hostility towards RAN, and I feel badly that I did not choose my words carefully enough. Profuse apologies. Perhaps I just felt some sadness that several of our long-term content creators, who deserve credit for making this place what it is, have left, for reasons varying from the highly significant to the incredibly inconsequential. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I’ve opened this again per the concerns below. I have no thoughts on the actual outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef I did not want to pile on since others have adequately expressed my main views above. The failure to abide by community restrictions is bad enough. It has been going on for years and that is typically more than enough to be banned by the community. RAN repeatedly ignoring our policies and the restrictions placed on him to keep others from needing to check his work is disrespectful of the other participants in the project. No matter what their contributions, we simply do not need an editor who repeatedly show nothing but contempt for their fellow editors time and opinions.
  Beyond his evident disrespect and disregard for his fellow editors and the projects policies and norms he is, as described above, creating his own sources to then be used as references in articles he is writing. That is, insofar as Wikipedia can be described as academic, flat out academic dishonesty. So, argueably, we have a serial plagiarist; Who has been gaming Wikipedia's sourcing rules and the restrictions placed on him; Who does not care that he is creating hundreds of hours of work for others to clean up his work and who refuses to take responsibility for, and help clean up his prior potentially copyright violating work; And continues to write problematic material despite multiple sanctions, requests and warnings that he stop... I do not see an upside to his continued participation here. Ban him, make a list of his unchecked articles in case someone else wants to recreate some later and then nuke them. Anyone who wants to check/clean them can request undeletion singly or in small batches. Jbh ^Talk 15:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef, based on all the above, although I for one am hoping to have my mind changed by a persuasive argument for why we should not indefinitely block RAN. At the moment, I do not see one. Fish+Karate 09:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef per their statement below "I apologize for my first 100 articles in Wikipedia in which I cut and pasted source material and worked on paraphrasing it in situ, that was clearly wrong. I also used very long quotes which exceeded the fair use parameters for Wikipedia. I worked very hard to identify the in situ paraphrasing and remove the material. I worked very hard to trim the long quotes, even when from public domain sources." The extreme minimalization of their copyvio's, which went far beyond the first 100 articles, where often no work at all was done on paraphrasing it afterwards, and were virtually no work was done by RAN after the CCI was started, coupled with the continued problems (like still using findagrave and other similar sites as a source). Fram (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef with regret. RAN's philosophy on the use of sources appears incompatible with this project, and the sanctions previously tried have been ineffective in preventing disruption. It's better for everyone involved if he contributes to the dissemination of human knowledge elsewhere (including Wikidata or Familypedia). power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose indef, without opining on other possible sanctions - I'm having a hard time with this. I think that I have less experience with RAN than many/most others in this thread, so I'm really just going by this thread itself, combined with the knowledge that there have been several past issues as reflected in the outstanding restrictions placed on him. I just have a hard time looking at the list of what I see as quite minor issues at the top of this thread and concluding we should indef someone with 200,000 edits based on those mistakes. I am flummoxed why someone who has had such issues in the past could make a mistake like a lulu.com source, but these are very typical problems that, when done simply to try to build neutral content, should be corrected but aren't indef material. We all know certain editors who persist in using terrible sources because they serve some political or ideological agenda, long-term civil POV pushers, the chronically uncivil, etc. who come through AN/ANI all the time, often without action and extremely rarely with an indef (among editors with more than a few edits). As I understand that I am now placing myself in a rather extreme minority with this view, but to be clear I'm not opposed to other sanctions. 200,000 edits does not, after all, give one permission to make infinite mistakes, as minor as any single handful of them may be. One possibility RAN may want to consider to avoid this indef, given the wide support this measure has received so far, would be to propose a set of even specific restrictions for himself that, if they happen again, would result in an indef (e.g. it should not be hard to avoid lulu.com books or findagrave). People are obviously frustrated with these accumulations of sometimes minor, sometimes negligible, and sometimes significant errors, and it's clear at least part of the community has had enough. Articulating the issues back, committing to stopping them, and ensuring "for real this time" by setting a penalty in advance might (?) help? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• But RAN already knew about the findagrave issue, already knew about familysearch, already knew there was an existing consensus regarding the political graveyard site etc, and already knew about his existing editing restrictions. And he chose to ignore all of that and more, repeatedly. How many more inches of rope should he be given? I didn't come here seeking an indef but I am persuaded from the comments of others etc that enough is enough. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef, but retaining talk-page access, so that RAN can if he wishes start doing what he should have been doing all along – working on clearing his CCI by identifying for each article what was copied and where it was copied from. He could be allowed to appeal the block once the CCI is complete; the other very real concerns about his editing could then be addressed if we ever get to that point. In passing, since this is the administrators noticeboard: I just can't understand why any editor with an open CCI would be allowed to continue editing – it seems completely counter-productive. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RAN's userspace articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@TonyBallioni:- Since RAN's article creation ban was enacted, RAN has created a large amount of articles in hi userspace. Being that he is now indeffed and it is unlikely that anyone will ever review those articles for copyvio (the review of the mainspace articles will probably never be completed), I think it would be appropriate to delete the pages in his userspace since copyvio is not supposed to be allowed anywhere on wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

While this would be a de facto presumption of guilt, I think it may well be justified considering RAN's long and precipitous history. Recall that they were once an admin, and have had sanction after sanction placed on them. Their copyright violations were numerous, and it's hardly a giant leap, given RAN's cavalier and apparently uncaring attitude toward the clean-up process, and their gaming of their other sanctions (which resulted in harsher sanctions), to assume that there would be copyright violations in their userspace articles if they all were examined individually, a laborious process which few editors will have an interest in undertaking. In any event, if RAN is unblocked in the future, they can make the case for undeletion of specific articles at DRN.

Given that the nuclear option wasn't taken to deal with the Neelix redirects, I suppose it's unlikely that it will be used here either, but I think the community really should consider that forcing editors to fix these kinds of problems with time- and effort-consuming long-term projects instead of simple mass deletion is a waste of our resources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

And the fact that, post-ban here, RAN is still working at WikiData is, I'm afraid, another reason why I will resolutely oppose the introduction of WikiData material to this project unless and until the good folks heading that project get their house in order. - Sitush (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have just done a very random check of the draft items in RAN's userspace and it seems that a decent number which exist there have in fact already gone live, eg: see this summary. (Mind, that article is dubious re: notability and I've had to remove a claim of parentage that was not in the cited source!) - Sitush (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• If I had been aware that this discussion was taking place, I would have opposed the imposition of a block per FeydHuxtable. I can think of a way forward, and it goes like this: If telling an editor which sources they are not allowed to use does not work, then tell them which sources they are allowed to use. For example, we are still missing several thousand exceptionally notable dead people from the 1885 and 1912 Dictionary of National Biography. For each of those people there is a sufficiently reliable public domain source. No one could make a mess of their initial first draft placeholder creation. The task is idiot proof. And it needs to be done urgently. James500 (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• But you could say that of pretty much anyone - vandal-only accounts, promoters, pov-pushers etc. There is no deadline and, personally, I'd much prefer people actually paraphrased even public domain sources rather than copy/pasted what is often florid language etc. Are you aware of how much volunteer time RAN has wasted over the years? And how little he has seemed to care about his editing restrictions? What makes you think he would abide by the restrictions that you suggest? - Sitush (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

RAN is under a number of restrictions, including one from creating new articles. But it really doesn't matter. He would end up using inappropriate references in the end. Or try and work around it by uploading his own material to third party sites and then using them as refs here. Or violating our copyvio policy. Its an old story. He is at the end of a process which has bent over backwards to allow him to still contribute. Looks like most of his subpages were moved by Rich F in 2016. Only in death does duty end (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

And some will be duplicates, eg: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Walter Francis O'Malley vs. Walter O'Malley. - Sitush (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Only in Death has it right. Whatever new restriction you give him it will not matter, he will always try to find some loophole to get around it, he thinks he smarter than everyone else here. I understand it is possible that some the the articles in his userspace may actually be decent articles without any problem, but because of the time involved to determine that it makes much more sense for us to just delete everything and not have to worry about the copyvios. Also, I never understood why it should be okay to copy and paste from public domain sources. It may not be illegal, but its still not the right way to do things. Can you imagine being back in school and handing in a paper. The teacher reads it and tells you its plagiarized and you say "no, I didn't do anything wrong, I only copied and pasted from public domain sources" You'd get an F and in my opinion any wikipedia editor who does the same thing is an F-quality editor.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"Plagiarism" is not a valid concept, it is a political weapon, the function of which is to enable the people at the top of society to oppress the masses, to promote themselves, and to stay at the top. It is a new-fangled ghastly innovation. It is censorship, which attacks freedom of expression and freedom of information. In the absence of legal compulsion, Wikipedia should have no regard to it whatsover. Wikipedia is not an exam, and editors are not being graded on the quality of their original ideas (which they are not allowed to express here). Paraphrasing public domain sources is often prohibitively time consuming (not cost effective) and introduces new errors. Many of our editors are not capable of paraphrasing sources accurately. They should not merely be permitted to copy public domain sources. For them, it should be strictly compulsory. It is generally better to have a WP:IMPERFECT placeholder article than no article at all (BLP is an exception, pre-1923 history is not). The vast number of unacceptable red links is a far more serious problem than the possible incidental introduction of a small amount of 'quaint' material that can be removed later. All those redlinks make our existing articles incomprehensible by depriving them of the context necessary to understand them. Many of the older sources (outside of certain fields in science and technology (in particular) where "progress" is a real thing) are as good as or better than more recent sources (which are often substantially copied from the older sources anyway, or simply non-existent). There is a deadline. If the encyclopedia is not expanded into a reasonable state within our lifetimes, it has failed to serve its purpose. It is not presently in a reasonable state because of all those wretched infernal redlinks that need to turn blue ASAP and all that missing context that needs to appear ASAP. James500 (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@James500: You need to read WP:Plagiarism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Paraphrasing public domain sources is often prohibitively time consuming ... and introduces new errors Umm ... I've seen people say the same thing about non-PD sources. It did not end well. Yeah, we are allowed lift text from PD sources, with appropriate attribution, but complaining about how time-consuming normal source-based Wikipedia editing is is not a good look: you should consider rephrasing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@James500: we are drifting off topic but if you haven't seen the problems caused by copy/pasting from PD sources, you are part of that problem. While the attribution may exist at creation, the practical effect is that any subsequent contributions cause a mangling and we lose the attribution specifics. Admittedly, that could be avoided if, for example, people attributed at least each paragraph rather putting a blanket note at the bottom of the article ... but historically that has been a rare occurrence. And the old PD sources are often of dubious reliability anyway - see WP:HISTRS for background info. Basically, just because we can do it doesn't mean we should do it. We have tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of pages that are well-nigh worthless because of this lazy approach to building the 'pedia. It was accepted back in the early 2000s when the aim was to create mass rapidly; it is much less accepted now. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@James500: - re-ping, see above. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(1) That is one of the most incompetent essays I have ever read. A work of history, no matter how scholarly, written many years after the fact must never be taken at face value. You must always identify and examine its sources. This is the consensus opinion of professional historians. See, for example, Betty Radice, "Introduction" in Aubrey de Selincourt's translation of "The War with Hannibal" by Livy (Penguin Books, 1965), p 11. That essay is a perfect example of why WP:V and WP:NOR need to be applied to the project namespace immediately and with full force. I am sick to death of the project namespace being used as a vehicle for this kind of crackpot WP:FRINGE original research. If you people are going to write essays about the historical method, use reliable sources to find out what the historical method is first. Stop making stuff up. (2) Leeds University recommends the use of several nineteenth century biographical dictionaries: [131]. Real historians of the Victorian era use, and lean heavily on, those and other nineteenth century sources, and you will find them cited everywhere in the most recent literature. Many of the articles in the ODNB are taken verbatim from the 1885 DNB, which was the leading source in its field until recently. If it is good enough for them . . . (I am well aware of the limitations of sources, and I agree that inline citations should be used, but you can't realistically expect to hold the first draft of an article to a higher standard than the University of Oxford: do so and we will suffer the same fate as Nupedia. In any event, Charles Matthews has done such a good job improving articles taken from DNB that we likely have no problems there). James500 (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is it that whenever the community shows even the smallest degree of unanimity about dealing with a problematic editor, someone is bound to pop up and decry its injustice?
Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is one of the most disgusting moments of Wikipedia history, the 24 hours in which the Wolfpack managed to encircle and disembowel one of our most productive creators of 19th century biography. We see a huge indictment by Sitush including the absolutely incorrect detail that Lawrence Kestenbaum's one-person-edited Political Graveyard.com is a "Self-Published Source" and we get to witness my personal friend Cullen328 piling on, not the mention of a couple of individuals who, in a just world, would themselves have been shown the door at WP long, long ago. Repulsive. Carrite (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  Reply That is some impressive hyperbole, Carrite, but since you pinged me, I think I will respond. Yes, we are friends but even friends sometimes disagree. To me, "piling on" describes a situation where editors gleefully call for a severe sanction without looking carefully at the evidence. Maybe you have a different definition. As for me, I have been looking at evidence of RAN's misconduct for quite a few years and I am saddened rather than feeling any schadenfreude. This editor was once an administrator and lost that and has had serious editing restrictions imposed by the community. I am no metaphorical wolf and RAN is no innocent lamb. RAN is well aware of our policies and guidelines, and that the principle of consensus guides our editing at all times. Unlike thousands of productive editors (including me) who have never been sanctioned, desysopped or subjected to editing restrictions, this particular lamb is a multiple repeat offender, who has persisted despite the sanctions. An indefinite block is not the same fate as having one's innards gnawed at by wolves. RAN could have a (non-religious) epiphany, and could write a sincere, persuasive promise to the community, acknowledging all past mistakes and pledging to adhere to community norms in the future. That could work. Do wolves offer that option? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Political Graveyard site was deemed unreliable at RSN on several occasions and RAN was aware of that even before opening the new discussion there to which I referred. Kestenbaum himself has said it is self-published. As for the rest, I can't really comment except to say that it did look like a pile-on was starting but it also looks like the close was done according to our guidelines. If you want it re-opened, ask TonyBallioni or find some other admin prepared to overturn it. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That is completely fucking ridiculous. Unreliable for what? It's a valuable resource. That's a bogus ruling by a handful of obsessives reigning in their little unproductive fiefdom and you as an article creator should be ashamed of even going that route of argumentation... It is self-published by Kestenbaum, obviously, because EVERY SINGLE BLOG ON THE ENTIRE INTERNET is self-published by an individual. One hundred percent. Do you advocate the elimination of ALL BLOGS from Wikipedia? RFC awaits your proposal. Additional observation: nice work doing this hit-job after 5 pm on a Saturday evening and running on a holiday Sunday in the United States. Perfect timing there, couldn't have possibly been done better. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Carrite - What holiday in the United States? Anyway, take a chill pill. You are projecting extreme emotion without conveying a message. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Father's Day (it took me a while to figure that out) power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It was also my sister-in-law's birthday. Obviously all complaints and discussions should have been suspended. EEng 16:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I did wonder. I never knew Father's Day was a holiday. Just as well we don't force this issue because the number of festivals in Hinduism would mean nothing ever happened here. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Also a lot of blogs are published by companies so that over-the-top shouting was also incorrect. Natureium (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes which is why self-published blogs are only reliable for the views of the person publishing them, or about themselves, or if anyone can make a convincing argument the self-published blogger is an expert in their field such that their opinion is relevant. This is basic stuff carrite as you well know. The fact is no one made a convincing argument political graveyard (in a number of discussions) as effectively a self-published blog passes the bar for being a reliable source. It needs to *demonstrate* its reliability in order to be used. Also you may want to strike the bullshit about holidays in the US, not everyone is in the US and neither knows nor cares about its holidays. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, blogs should not be used as sources for wikipedia and am actually surprised that anyone would suggest otherwise, see WP:UGC. The political graveyard may be useful as a tool to start research, but it should never be cited as a source. It's been proven to be unreliable as per the discussion here. Even I'll admit that the discussion above was closed a little quickly, so I don't mind it being reopened, but I doubt the outcome will change. RAN has a blatant disregard for policy and what's really disgusting is that a few people keep trying to prop him up.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, because of Carites comment, I did ten seconds of research, which shows Political Graveyard being cited in a books published by academic publishers Routledge, and Brookings. And that is just ten seconds, so has anyone actually researched it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And they found errors. And Kestenbaum has admitted to errors. And, as I am going to get fed up of saying, my report was not solely related to that site. In fact, that site is the least of the problems raised. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A multitude of our sources have errors, and we applaud them for admitting it, in fact, it's counted in their favor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

And who gives a crap in the context of the entirety of my opening remarks here? You can take that back to RSN if you want but the consensus was do not use it even before RAN opened the last discussion there. You and Carrite both are sidetracking things. Top of the list: RAN was still breaching a multitude of his editing restrictions and doesn't respond to much when queried. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sidetracked? On a railroad, is it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea. What is a railroad? - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

See railroaded - that's where sidetrack comes from. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The political graveyard issue is pretty much decided, if you look at the last discussion (initiated by RAN and linked in my comments above), an editor was able to find mistakes just by looking into the first few entries on the site. However, if you want to discuss that issue more, feel free to open another thread at WP:RSN. Now, to get back on track (I had to say it), the politcal graveyard issue was just one of many that Sitush outlined above and it is relatively minor compared to some of the others. The bigger issue is RAN's constant gaming of his editing restrictions and our overall COPYVIO policy, his lack of editorial discretion, and his constant refusal to accept consensus.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• If there is consensus to reopen it, I have no problem doing so. In cases like this, where the support was clear and the minimum time has elapsed, I typically try to avoid further beating of a dead horse both out of respect for the individual being discussed and for the community’s time as a whole. It popped up on my watchlist, I saw there was a clear consensus, and I was going off of the policy requirements for a CBAN and the clear community support an indef had. My thinking was (and is) that keeping it open longer would have made the situation worse from a human perspective and the best thing to do would be to close it since consensus had been reached. Like I said, if there is consensus to reopen it, I don’t mind doing so. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• While I'd personally agree an indefinite block for RAN is probably the best option, I do think 24 hours could be seen as 'railroading' and am confident Carrite has an exceptional defense prepared that will convincingly demonstrate to us all why RAN should not be blocked; I'd like to give him the opportunity to provide us with this. Fish+Karate 14:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• I didn't realise it was a holiday in the US until you mentioned it. No-one else has, either. And it is 5pm somewhere in the world every hour, and it was actually something like 6 am here when I posted it. So consider some AGF. As for the site, consider CONSENSUS. As for the rest: you haven't even said anything beyond a description of it as a "huge indictment". There is a whole lot more to this that one website. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Out of respect for RAN, I went through the articles he links from his user page under the headings "2015" and "2014". Are there other articles being considered in this discussion? I found 15 articles which were not redirects (feel free to add to this list if someone finds any from Special:PrefixIndex/User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) I missed):

Of those, the three lists, a few non-article essays/notes, and the articles on Post, Harben, and Harteveld are the only ones which contain more than trivial information, although Post and Harben have articles in the mainspace. I looked through Special:PrefixIndex/User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) for more, and found a few. Some were extremely in-progress (such as User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Salmine Sophia Pedersen), not meant for mainspace, or already have articles in mainspace (such as User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Osborne Theomun Olsen and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Philip David Morehead). Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

There's really only two options here, so let's start a survey.

• Support Deletion of all userspace articles- I understand the presumption of guilt argument, but given that these articles are written solely by a known copyvio editor, it would be a waste of time (assuming anyone would even volunteer to do it) to go through these article one by one and determine if they are in compliance. It's already an onerous task to go though his mainspace article which is still nowhere near completion. Unlike the mainspace articles, deleting the userspace articles really is not going to be disruptive to the encyclopedia. It may be unfair to him to delete these, but its more unfair to everyone else to keep hosting plagiarized material. Besides he's probably going to upload the articles to five other sites (none of which are our responsibility), if he hasn't done so already, so technically he won't be losing anything--Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support deletion of all userspace articles - per my reasoning above. [132] Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Query - a lot of the items in his userspace are now redirects because other people - notably, Rich F - moved the creations into mainspace. Would deleting those affect attribution? - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No, if it has already been moved it would not be affected. Likewise, if there is a page that someone really wants they can go ahead and move it now before this is implemented. However, they are warned if they do so, they will take full responsibility for the copyvio (if there is one).--Rusf10 (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If there's consensus to delete these, perhaps it would make sense to allow for some time period (say, 2 weeks or a month) during which other editors can look for salvageable material. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The articles have been in existence for years already, there's been more than enough time. If editors really want to help they can focus on the mainspace articles that have been flagged since those are not going away.--Rusf10 (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes but as a general rule, unless invited, people do not edit stuff in the userspace of other contributors. So there hasn't really been any time allowed. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's the invitation [133] and that was three years ago.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic

Strong oppose. This is truly ridiculous. Users are spending hundreds of hours of thsir life cleaning up Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, without getting any encouragement or reward, and now you come and say "not salvageable, mass-delete all of them"? Sure, we can blow up the whole Wikipedia because someone likes to be visible at noticeboards, but have respect to what others have done.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Misread the proposal, did not realize it was userspace. I am not surprised that Fram feels disrespect for me though. And, well, I did spend time on CCI., contrary to the falser claim below.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC) You know that CCI's don't deal with userspace articles? And that your opposition to this deletion will only create more unrewarded clean-up work, not less? Please explain how not deleting these pages shows "respect to what others have done" at the RAN CCI, because I, as one of those who has spent many hours at the RAN CCI (unlike, I think, you?) only feel disrespect for that work from a "strong oppose" like yours, not from the proposal to delete these pages. Fram (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks for striking your oppose. However, please read what I said; I feel disrespect "from" an oppose like yours, I don't feel disrespect "for" you. And you may have spent time on the RAN CCI, that's why I posed it as a question; however, I don't see your name at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108 02, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108 03... so where exactly did you spend time on the RAN CCI? Fram (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC) I did participate in CCI, which was or was not RAN CCI, I do not remember, to be honest. I stopped dealing with any copyright issues when I gave up my admin flag. However, I do feel uncomfortable discussing anything at all with Fram, because I feel under a constant attack, and I do not think I will be reacting to them any more.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Next time, read what I write, instead of "feeling under constant attack" and misreading everything as if they are attacks. You may well have participated at CCI in general, and I didn't comment on that. Basically, you first misread the proposal, and then misread my reply in two different ways; you claimed that I had made a "falser claim" (now struck) and that "Fram feels disrespect for me" (not struck out), and these attacks on me by you are somehow my fault because you "feel under a constant attack"? In that case, next time, perhaps simply don't participate in threads I'm already involved in and where you misread everything, including the most basic aspect of the proposal, anyway? Fram (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Pretty much anyone who makes a cogent argument against Ymblanter will be viewed by him as a personal attack. Keep it up, and he'll be starting an ANI thread in double-quick time! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Last time, lugnuts, you were blocked for a month for personal attacks, right? Which was approximately a couple of months ago. And you first cried and said you are a changed man, but nobody wanted to buy this. And then you made promises that you will never be personally attacking people, and even mentioned me specifically, because at the time I was your favorite personal target, right? And you were unblocked under the condition that you will never be personally attacking anybody, right? And now completely unprovoked - I did not mention you, the topic is not about you, not about me - you come and make a personal comment about me, correct? Well, I will not go to ANI. I have better things to do now. I will demolish you next time you are in trouble. Because you have just proven that your promises are worth of exactly one pound of dogshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC) @Ymblanter:, your comments above are a completely disproportionate response to the discussion at hand. Nobody, regardless of their level of frustration, should be stating "I will demolish you next time you are in trouble" and the remainder of your rant is equally unacceptable. Please take a break lest one be handed to you.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC) That's fine, I was on a break for a month recently as a result of harassment of lugnuts against me, no problem for me to disappear again, especially since harassment resumed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC) You don't need to disappear, just go make a cup of tea something. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support deletion, mostly years-old copies of mainspace articles or pages which would never make a stand-alone article anyway. Coupled with the copyvio and attribution problems, getting rid of them is the safest option. Fram (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all Lets not waste 2+ years on this, like the Neelix issue, and just have it done and dusted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete all- Agree that deleting these would save a lot of time and hassle, since even if they could be edited to comply with our copyright requirements, the majority of them would probably not survive at AfD anyway. Reyk _YO! 15:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I've had another wander through them, on and off today. I'm still not seeing anything worth keeping. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. Nothing worth keeping that would survive AfD and/or a copyright investigation. -FASTILY 17:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me ike we again have something close enough to unanimity to confidently call it a consensus and enact the result. My only question would be if anyone can see an easy way to compile a list which excludes any pages which are not article drafts? If that was a thing it would make zapping them all pretty straightforward. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I would just go ahead and delete everything in Special:PrefixIndex/User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_). As mentioned above there are a number of redirects, but I really do see how anything would be lost if the redirect is deleted. @Smmurphy: mentioned that some of the pages are not articles, but unless they want to compile a list of pages, I would just go ahead and delete everything (knowing RAN he probably has copies of everything someone else anyway)--Rusf10 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The long and short of my effort is that I agree; other than lists (which I don't care about) and notes RAN wrote to himself (which I have no opinion about) I can't find anything to keep even if I wanted to keep something. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Worst (or best for RAN) case is that after six months, he appeals his unblock, comes back and asks for any lists he's made to be restored per WP:REFUND. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

All right then, deploying a batch delete of the whole mess. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done 571 pages zapped. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RAN response

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sitush and Rusf are strongly opposed to two positions that I advocate for, 1) linking people in lists to Wikidata (like we do for individual biographical articles) and 2) the inclusion of lists of mayors in Wikipedia. Rusf has nominated the mayor lists for deletion multiple times. This is the cause of the friction between us. There is currently an RFC on whether we should link to Wikidata for people that appear in lists. The first RFC was inconclusive, the second RFC is closed but has not been accessed for consensus. I will abide by the ruling there. I created an example of what the linking would look like at Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey to see what the plusses and minuses would like. The bad, a sea of red links if we use {{ILL}} and we can't use redirects (ILL was one of the options at the Rusf RFC) and the other method a hidden annotation such as <!--Q123456-->.

I apologize for my first 100 articles in Wikipedia in which I cut and pasted source material and worked on paraphrasing it in situ, that was clearly wrong. I also used very long quotes which exceeded the fair use parameters for Wikipedia. I worked very hard to identify the in situ paraphrasing and remove the material. I worked very hard to trim the long quotes, even when from public domain sources. Here is what I suggest to reduce the current friction between Sitush and Rusf10 and myself. I agree that the lists of mayors may not be wanted and may not be useful, and it was wrong to advocate for them so strongly. I will not create any more standalone mayor lists in the English Wikipedia until consensus is firm that they are wanted and useful. It was wrong to create an experiment linking to Wikidata from a list of mayors. I will no longer experiment with linking to Wikidata from tables/lists until consensus is firm that they are wanted and useful. I will work closely with a mentor to ensure that I comply fully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

You are wrong, certainly with regard to me. I don't think I have ever commented about the utility or otherwise of any list of mayors, nor about redlinks. And my list of your problematic contributions goes way beyond linking to Wikidata. I did not even realise the RfC to which you refer was going on until after you mentioned it. You're still not understanding the sheer range of your problematic editing, sorry, and until now have actually buried your head in the sand most of the time, ignoring queries etc. You're not showing evidence of being here to collaborate, nor to abide by longstanding policies and your own editing restrictions. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I for one cannot accept this apology. It doesn't address all the issues and RAN tries to downplay his wrongdoing. He only makes very minor concessions including things that he is already banned from doing. I apologize for my first 100 articles in Wikipedia in which I cut and pasted source material and worked on paraphrasing it in situ, that was clearly wrong. No, there are over 650 articles, stop trying to downplay you actions. Also, you never even attempted to help clean up this mess. I also used very long quotes which exceeded the fair use parameters for Wikipedia. I worked very hard to identify the in situ paraphrasing and remove the material. I worked very hard to trim the long quotes, even when from public domain sources. No, you are currently banned from uses the quote parameter when citing sources and I've even seen you game that by putting the quote outside of the parameter. I will not create any more standalone mayor lists in the English Wikipedia until consensus is firm that they are wanted and useful. Do you think everyone here is stupid? You are currently banned from creating articles, so how is this a concession? I can see this be gamed as I didn't create the article, I just expanded it.I will work closely with a mentor to ensure that I comply fully. Who would that be?--Rusf10 (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Crocodile tears. If RAN really meant what he said about his first 100 articles, he would have participated in the effort to clean them up. He didn't, even when doing so was a condition toward being able to move his new articles into mainspace. He simply continued to make articles in his userspace, allowing others to move them, and gamed his other sanctions, which garnered him tighter sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help needed with IP hopping vandal

I've been playing whack a mole with an IP hopping vandal. As soon as I protect a page they move onto another. See Mark Lawrenson, Mark Gatiss, Mark Owen and Mark Noble. Any help or advice would be appreciated because short of protecting every article for people named Mark, or just waiting until they get bored and give up, I don't know what to do. I know very little about range blocks and even less about IPV6 addresses so I don't know if that would be possible. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I rangeblocked 2a02:c7d:6a71:b100::/64. Are there any other IPs involved?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've put down a quick range block of 2A02:C7D:6B80:0:0:0:0:0/41 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) It might want to be extended or adjusted, and I haven't yet looked at IPv4 vandals such as 94.5.170.55. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! 94.5.170.55 was the only IPv4 so far. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Meat / Sockpuppet of Pavithra12

The user user:Janakiramandd has a contribution history that overlap with blocked user user:Pavithra12 based on WP:DUCK I feel it's a Meat puppet or Sock Puppet. I can't able to provide diffs because most of the pages with overlapping edits are deleted 2409:4072:6110:C6F3:ABE3:9CBC:5A5E:C485 (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Not able to create a page for the village - Panapakkam Village - பனப்பாக்கம் 607108 located in Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu, India

Good Day,

I tried creating a page for a village named Panapakkam located in Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu. There are other town panchayats with the name Panapakkam but in different districts. When I was editing the new page, I couldnt proceed further as admins locked this name it seems. Could you please help me with proceeding further. Thanks.

-PearlVictor

There is already an article called Panapakkam about a different place. Try calling yours Panapakkam (village) or Panapakkam (Cuddalore District) to differentiate. You can click one of those links to get started. When you're done, be sure to add a See also template to the Panapakkam article. ubiquity (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

An unresponsive user?

Short opinion

I don't feel if I'm premature here? Rahmadiabsyah just added some stuff to here and I still wanted a reply. Is the person ignoring what's going on for almost three weeks now? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You forgot to put in this was for WP:ANI. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Louis Epstein (12.144.5.2) and transgender topics

Note. 12.144.5.2 is not able to edit AN/I right now due to protections. They can only post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts for the time being.

• 12.144.5.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Louis Epstein is all around a net positive to this project except regarding transgender-related topics where 12.144.5.2 gets into drawn out fights to push an anti-LGBT agenda. I try to be tolerant of individuals who express minority viewpoints, but Louis Epstein shows no signs of stopping this campaign even if others find it disruptive. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

To push back against concerted efforts to push a "pro-LGBT" agenda is not pushing an "anti-LGBT agenda".Just insisting that NPOV does not mean complete embrace of "LGBT" talking points.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)